Electoral Commission of South Australia, $7,023,000

Administered Items for the Electoral Commission of South Australia, $545,000

Legislative Council, $5,962,000

House of Assembly, $8,593,000

Joint Parliamentary Services, $20,289,000

Administered Items for Joint Parliamentary Services, $4,074,000

Membership:

Hon. J.A.W. Gardner substituted for Mr Telfer.

Hon. D.G. Pisoni substituted for Mr Pederick.

Ms O'Hanlon substituted for Mr Fulbrook.

Mr Teague substituted for Hon. V.A. Tarzia.

Minister:

Hon. D.R. Cregan, Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services, Special Minister of State.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr M. Sherry, Electoral Commissioner, Electoral Commission of South Australia.

Ms A. Cashen, Deputy Electoral Commissioner, Electoral Commission of South Australia.

Mr R. Crump, Clerk, House of Assembly.

Ms C. Freeman, Director, Organisational Capability, Department of Treasury and Finance.

Mr T. Smith, Manager, Policy and Entitlements, Electorate Services, Department of Treasury and Finance.

Mr C. Nguyen, Manager, Finance, Electoral Commission of South Australia.

The CHAIR: I open the portfoIios of the Electoral Commission of SA, the Legislative Council, the House of Assembly and Joint Parliamentary Services. The minister appearing is the Special Minister of State. I advise that the proposed payments are now open for examination. I call on the minister to make an opening statement, if he wishes to do so, or introduce his advisers. I will then call on the lead speaker, who is the member for Heysen, to make some opening remarks if he wishes to do so or go straight into questions. Minister.

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon. To start, I wish to introduce the representatives who are present today. To my right is the Electoral Commissioner, Mr Mick Sherry, and to my far left is the Deputy Electoral Commissioner, Ms Alice Cashen. Also joining me to my left is Mr Rick Crump, the Clerk of the House of Assembly.

Also appearing, behind me from the Department of Treasury and Finance, are the Director of Organisational Capability, Ms Connie Freeman, and Policy and Entitlements Manager, Electorate Services, Mr Tony Smith. I am also joined by the Electoral Commissioner of South Australia's Manager of Finance, Ms Chau Nguyen. I am grateful to them for the assistance in preparation for today but also their assistance that they will provide to the house today in relation to questions that members may have.

As the Special Minister of State I would like to very briefly touch on one of the government's key priorities in this particular portfolio area. Members will be aware that the state government has released a draft bill to ban political donations. The then opposition made a commitment to examine this matter if it came to government and now, of course, has come to government.

This is, in my view, world-leading legislation that seeks to play a part in restoring trust in our democracy. I would strongly encourage all those with an interest to engage with the public consultation process. I look forward to working with members on this important measure to improve our democratic practices and processes.

Mr TEAGUE: I will just start where the minister left off. The minister might indicate by reference to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1 at page 13, second dot point—perhaps as well as those introductory remarks—was the Electoral Commissioner consulted on the legislation in relation to the donations?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: What form did that consultation take and when did it occur? What was the response?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: Certain operational matters were put to the Electoral Commissioner to assist in the drafting of the legislation and to seek the Electoral Commissioner's considerable expertise with respect to certain matters which are contemplated by the draft legislation, and to ensure that the draft legislation could be put out to public consultation.

Mr TEAGUE: It is a new portfolio. The minister has given some indication of what is entailed by it. Perhaps by reference to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2 at page 7—this is replicated elsewhere in the budget papers as well—at about point 3 on the page there is a description of the Hon. D.R. Cregan and, after naming other portfolios, indication of Special Minister of State. The indication in relation to that portfolio appears to be the last named item on the list. I do not know if the minister has that. Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 7 is the example I am referring to, but I think it is repeated at the beginning of each of the budget papers—yes, we have it in each of the budget papers; that is just one example.

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: Is the Special Minister of State responsible for Electorate Services?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: I refer in that regard to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 157. That is an area of responsibility within the responsibility of the Special Minister of State, is it?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: Electorate Services overall. Do you have a particular budget line there that you have in mind?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, Sub-program 3.3: Electorate Services. Is that a ministerial responsibility of the Special Minister of State?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: As far as I am aware, the budget papers as printed are accurate, but if there is a specific question that the shadow minister would like to take me to on one of the line items, we might be able to assist the shadow minister.

Mr TEAGUE: I am not sure what question the minister is answering, but the question, once again, is: is the minister responsible for Sub-program 3.3: Electorate Services?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: As far as I am aware, yes.

Mr TEAGUE: Does the minister have any explanation for why that sub-program appears within the responsibility of the Treasurer? I refer, for example, to page 140 of that same budget paper.

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: Let me seek advice. I am advised that the business unit still sits within Treasury, to clear up the mystery, but reports to me.

Mr TEAGUE: Perhaps by reference to the list of agencies and programs that is set out in each of the budget papers at the start, but we are using Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 7 as the working example perhaps—at least I am: is it the case that the sub-program, therefore, Electorate Services, ought properly to be identified as within the—there is no part of Electorate Services that is within the ministerial responsibilities of the Treasurer, in other words?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: As I say, I understand that the business unit remains within Treasury but for ministerial purposes reports to the Special Minister of State.

Mr TEAGUE: Are there any other constituent parts of the Special Minister of State that are not articulated there on page 7 of Volume 2 or otherwise in the budget papers?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: Let me seek some additional advice in relation to whether there is any other, for example, business unit that still remains within Treasury. I am advised that the business unit is the unit that is remaining within Treasury, but I think it might be useful to observe for members present that there is not a standalone department that is sitting underneath the Special Minister of State. Instead, there is a series of programs or sub-programs and, indeed, policy objectives and government objectives that have been—it might be described—collected within that particular portfolio.

The business unit is an example; the FTE staff remain at their desks within Treasury and there has been no shift of those staff into a new building, so far as I am advised. It might be the case that if there was a transfer of a particular unit or agency within a department as between, for example, Treasury or another government department—the one that springs to mind most obviously is the Attorney-General's Department—then there would be the physical movement of staff, resources, records and other arrangements.

In this case, using the business unit to which we have earlier referred as an example, as I say, those staff, those documents, those records, the computer systems and the performance of day-to-day tasks remain exactly where they were the day before the portfolio was instituted, but all of those staff members, I am advised, for program purposes are reporting to this particular minister.

Mr TEAGUE: So there are a number of them collected: what are they, in addition to the Electoral Commission of South Australia that is within AGD and Electorate Services that is within Treasury?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I think that it is not necessarily agencies. There are certain acts, for example, that are committed as well to the Special Minister. Otherwise, I would depend on the accuracy of the budget papers as printed.

Mr TEAGUE: What are the acts?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: We can provide a full list if it would assist the shadow minister, but otherwise those matters are gazetted and do not necessarily relate to a particular budget line item. If there is a program or budget line item that the shadow minister would like to advance, then of course we can examine that but, as I say, I provide three matters by way of guidance: the first is that, so far as I am aware, there is no physical movement of FTE staff reflected in the budget papers; there are certain policy objectives that have been collected within the Special Minister's portfolio; and, as is always the case with ministers, there are a series of acts that are committed to that particular minister and gazetted. This, I feel, Chair, is straying a fair way from the examination of a particular budget line item.

Mr TEAGUE: The Electoral Commission staff have—

The CHAIR: The member for Heysen is using up his time; if he wants to waste it, that is his prerogative.

Mr TEAGUE: Thanks very much, Chair. Have the Electoral Commission staff moved offices or shifted their work location in any way, out of AGD?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: Let me seek some advice. To answer as best we can the shadow minister's question, I am not aware and not advised of any movement of staff that are within the Electoral Commissioner's office. I am not advised of any additional secondments, for example, that have been made to assist us. The agency remains intact, if that is the right way to describe its extant existence. Of course, it is an independent organisation, as it has been from its foundation, and assistance must be provided in terms of financial assistance and administrative assistance. I will seek some additional advice as to which departments provide that assistance.

The particular agency is supported by, for example, the Attorney-General's Department. In terms of support that might be provided, it is financial support; procurement support, if there might be the need to assist with procurement matters; and of course HR matters as may be necessary. It is also advice—if there is to be Crown advice that is obtained then it is obtained on a cost basis, and it may be that the Attorney-General might support with respect to some certain other advice—and then, of course, there may be the necessity to coordinate or assist with the delivery of particular ICT or other programs.

Mr TEAGUE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 17, sub-program 1.2: Non-parliamentary Electoral Services. First in the dot-point list of highlights for 2023-24 is:

Conducted the initial election for members of the South Australia First Nations Voice. Polling day was 16 March 2024.

Just by reference to the table on page 19, at about point 3 on the page it refers to non-parliamentary elections prescribed by acts of parliament. Is there any reason that the First Nations Voice election was not projected in the 2023-24 budget? Just for the committee's benefit, this is legislation passed in March 2023, with the election originally scheduled for 9 September, which was later deferred to March 2024. So it is all within 2023-24. We see a projection of zero non-parliamentary elections, which turns out to be one election in the estimated result.

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: We have sought advice from the Electoral Commissioner in relation to that matter. I am just going to seek some additional advice at the moment, and then I will come back to you. I am advised that the best course here, to ensure that we can assist the shadow minister with the additional detail he seeks, is to take the question on notice and come back to the house.

Mr TEAGUE: So you just do not know why the election was not projected for 2023-24? You see there is zero. Do you agree with that?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: It is not for me to agree or disagree.

Mr TEAGUE: Well, you see it. You can see it there on page 19.

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: As I say, we have taken some initial advice. The initial advice leads me to the conclusion that the best course to assist the shadow minister with the inquiry that he has made is for us to return to the house.

Mr TEAGUE: So the minister is going to take on notice, for the benefit of the committee, any explanation as to how there were zero non-parliamentary elections projected and the estimated result is one election. Can the minister indicate that that one was in fact the First Nations Voice to Parliament election that is described in the footnote to that line?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: In our efforts to assist the shadow minister in relation to the accounting treatment and arrangements, we have received some additional advice which may allow me to supplement the information that we would otherwise bring back to the house. I will turn to the Electoral Commissioner.

Mr SHERRY: The Voice election was originally attributed to sub-program 1.1, which was Parliamentary Electoral Services. That traditionally relates to parliamentary elections. It has since been corrected and moved across to sub-program 1.2, which relates to Non-parliamentary Electoral Services, which is the appropriate program for the Voice to fit within.

Mr TEAGUE: Did the Electoral Commission work with Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation in relation to the Voice election?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: Certain arrangements were put in place to best facilitate the election to which the shadow minister refers. I am going to invite the Electoral Commissioner to outline some of the steps that were taken to both ensure the election could be delivered and also which reflect the appropriate collaboration between departments in order to give effect to that particular outcome.

Mr SHERRY: In the planning for the Voice election, we did engage with Commissioner Agius, who at that time was the South Australian Voice commissioner, and we also engaged with staff from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation. The purpose of that engagement was that the staff from Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation were ultimately responsible for the explanation and the promotion of the Voice concept itself, and ECSA's role was the promotion and the communication regarding the electoral process. It is important that both our organisations worked together to ensure consistent messaging and consistent branding to avoid any potential confusion.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 14, Electoral Services, Description/objectives, dot point 2 states:

monitoring and reporting disclosures of donations and campaign expenditure for registered political parties, candidates, agents and third parties

With the proposed changes to donation laws that you are managing, are you anticipating that the Electoral Commissioner will continue in that role and, if so, what other duties would the Electoral Commission have to undertake in order to enforce or investigate breaches of disclosure or donations and other matters that have quite severe penalties outlined in the legislation?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I thank the member for the question. The legislation proposed by the government is out for consultation. It is entirely possible that that legislation will not only change in the course of the consultation process but it may also change between the consultation process and when it is introduced to parliament, and then of course might be changed by this house or the other place. I illustrate or emphasise those matters to indicate that the question, although I appreciate it and understand its thrust and direction and the importance of it, is really inviting me to engage in what might be described as fairly extensive speculation as to what it is the Electoral Commissioner may or may not be required to do by parliament ultimately, assuming that legislation passes in whatever form it passes.

What I can say to assist the member, within scope ideally—but I feel we may be straying well beyond budget line item analysis—is, as has been initially detailed, that there has been some consultation with the Electoral Commissioner about the overall architecture to take the benefit of this proposal, to take the benefit of the Electoral Commissioner's advice. That is as far as I can advance matters, being as generous as I possibly can.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Have you been advised that the new requirements as proposed—with all due respect, minister, it is government legislation that is out there for consultation. It is intended the government will move that legislation. It would not be putting something forward if it had not considered the ifs and what ifs and the mechanics of how that would work. Would there still be a role for the Electoral Commission in monitoring and reporting on disclosures and donations under the new legislation as it is currently before consultation?

The CHAIR: I note the minister's response to the earlier question; I rule that question out of order. Next question. Member for Heysen.

Mr TEAGUE: I have some questions about the local government elections. I will endeavour to do this in the most practical way, with reference in particular to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 18, the performance indicators table at about point 7 on the page, and the previous page, page 17, at about points 7 and 8 on the page, the completion of the operational review and the local government election report. I reference first the page 17 dot point highlights. Has the operational review of the 2022 local government periodic elections been completed and what operational changes were recommended in the review?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: There is a procedural difficulty. Certain of these matters fall within another minister's portfolio, although we would endeavour to assist the shadow minister. I can turn to the Electoral Commissioner, who may be able to provide some general overview, so as not to frustrate the shadow minister but, as I say, the portfolio delineation does not assist the examination of the budget line item, regrettably.

Mr SHERRY: Thank you, minister. As with all elections, ECSA conducts a comprehensive evaluation. That evaluation involves surveys with candidates, electors, in this case council CEOs, etc., and that forms the basis for what we consider in relation to what we call our internal evaluation report. That evaluation has been completed. We are now finalising a parliamentary report regarding the 2022 local government periodic elections. That report has been drafted. The next stage is some design and then printing. At the conclusion of that process, it will be provided to the Minister for Local Government for his consideration. Within that report, I can say there will be a number of recommendations for parliament's consideration regarding legislative change.

Mr TEAGUE: As a follow-up to that, I suppose, can the minister indicate to the committee what caused, as announced in December 2023, a mistake in the Electoral Commission process that resulted in the incorrect calculation of votes in those 25 local government elections, including the Adelaide Plains Council, which altered the outcome of that election, I understand, in respect of two candidates? That is referred to particularly in the table at page 18.

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I am able to inform the house that on 5 December 2023, while preparing for the City of Adelaide Central Ward Court of Disputed Returns, an error in the settings of the count software used to process 25 elections from the 2022 periodic elections was discovered. The settings error had little to no effect on 24 of the 25 elections; however, in the Adelaide Plains Council area councillor election to which the shadow minister has referred, the error caused two of nine councillors to be what might be correctly described as incorrectly elected. A subsequent casual vacancy was therefore also filled using what might be described as incorrect candidates.

The Electoral Commissioner of South Australia engaged Crown Counsel to advise the Electoral Commissioner on his options to resolve the incorrectly elected councillors under the Local Government (Elections) Act 1999. The Electoral Commissioner has petitioned the court for an extension of time to lodge an application in the Court of Disputed Returns, I am advised, and cause the correct candidates to be declared elected.

There are certain other matters that I would wish to advise the house. The petitions were lodged on or about 5 February 2024. As well, to inform the house, a directions hearing was held on 26 February 2024. The extension of time petitions, I am advised, were set down for argument on 17 June 2024. I will just take advice for a moment. I am informed that whatever the outcome or not of that argument, or whether it did or did not take place, the court will next convene on 25 July. The Electoral Commissioner of South Australia currently does not have a time frame as to when this matter will be resolved or detail on further future court attendances as may be required or managed by the court as part of its case management and other processes.

The Local Government (Elections) Act 1999 provides for the Electoral Commission of South Australia to recover all costs and expenses incurred by the returning officer in carrying out official duties from councils; however, I am advised that this recovery is restricted to the conduct of the elections. This does not include costs that arise following this activity.

I am also informed that the Electoral Commission of South Australia has incurred approximately $50,000 in Crown legal costs to date. In terms of the date for that calculation, unsurprisingly it is 17 June, which was the earlier reference to a possible—

Mr TEAGUE: Is that amount—

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: Just hold on a moment, shadow minister. I am still providing some additional detail. It should be noted that these types of expenses have been incurred following prior statewide council elections; however, were previously insignificant. These expenses were unavoidable cost pressures that were not budgeted at the time the 2023-24 budget was implemented.

The Department of Treasury and Finance has provided the Electoral Commission of South Australia with a total of $400,000 in expenditure budget to fund additional advice likely to be incurred by the Crown Solicitor's Office and legal fees incurred in 2023-24 relating to Adelaide Plains Council and City of Adelaide Central Ward, Court of Disputed Returns.

A review into this error identified the correct processes were undertaken, including two staff members verifying the settings and running a 2018 election through the 2022 settings to ensure the same results were achieved. Unfortunately, I am advised, the 2018 election chosen did not involve a distribution of preferences that would have detected the error and no computer counts will be conducted until a new procedure guide is completed, for obvious reasons.

Mr TEAGUE: In respect of the $400,000 of additional provision, how much of that has been applied to the first of those disputed returns that I think the minister indicated or referred to in the course of the answer, that is the City of Adelaide Central Ward? It is also listed as pending a decision. Has the entirety of the $400,000 been spent? Do we do the maths relevant to the $50,000 spent to 17 June on the Adelaide Plains? Is there any correlation?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I am advised that it is possible on an approximate basis to perform what might not be necessarily a calculation but rather an allocation of funding or an estimated allocation. I am advised that the $50,000 relates to the legal matters arising from Adelaide Plains and it follows that the balance relates to the Adelaide Central Ward, Court of Disputed Returns.

Mr TEAGUE: But that has all been spent, has it? Put it this way: how much has been spent already on each of those disputes, and how much is budgeted to be spent?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I appreciate the shadow minister's effort to try to clarify the matters that he is seeking an answer to. The most up-to-date advice I now have—and we have just sought additional advice—is that, in fact, $341,000 will relate to the Adelaide Central Ward costs incurred (and, for that purpose, I suppose we could say spent), and $50,000 for the Adelaide Plains. That makes a total of $391,000.

I observe that these matters are ongoing. I am advised that both matters will continue into next financial year, and I make that observation without any speculation as to the consequences. I am sure that certain inferences can be drawn in relation to what might be necessary to sustain the appearances that are being made for the Electoral Commissioner in order to advance the Electoral Commissioner's position, either as an applicant or respondent, with respect to these important matters.

Mr TEAGUE: When will there be a public-facing report from the Electoral Commission if a local government periodic election is completed, as has been the case with other local government elections?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: There again may be some difficulties to which we have alluded with respect to portfolio allocations, but I will just seek some additional advice.

The CHAIR: That will be the last question, because the time allotted has expired.

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: Chair, without intending to frustrate anybody present, I have done my best to assist the shadow minister, but I cannot answer for the Minister for Local Government.

The CHAIR: The allotted time having expired, I declare the examination of the Electoral Commission of South Australia, Legislative Council, House of Assembly and Joint Parliamentary Services complete. I thank the minister and his advisers, and I thank members of the committee.

At 18:01 the committee adjourned to Wednesday 26 June 2024 at 09:00.