Referendum (Deadlocks) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 October 2015.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:38): I am tempted to say, really, all of what I said on the referendum bill we have just dealt with to the extent that it has been adjourned, namely, this is a bill—this is the short version, you will be pleased to know—that is necessary if we are to amend the constitution in respect of deadlocks, and that if it were to pass the upper house it would be necessary for us to follow it with this bill, which would provide for a referendum for the public to vote in a referendum before ultimately the constitution reform bill was presented to the government.

So, for all of the same reasons, we will need to go to a referendum, and this bill purports to pose the question to the electors: do you approve the Constitution (Deadlocks) Amendment Bill 2015? And similarly, as I put in the previous referendum bill, that would require an explanatory memorandum being prepared in the 'yes' and 'no' vote to be put to the public.

There would need to be appropriate public forums, there would need to be persons available to undertake the explanation to the public and to be able to answer questions, there would be advertising in various mediums from which the public could get information, on which they could make a contribution to the discussion on that to present their case. Political parties would sometimes follow with material that they publish, which would be at their expense, and they may make submissions and the like.

If we were to compare the cost of doing all of that with what the government has indicated would be an extra $1.9 million to do it at the general election with both referendum questions being presented to the public, with the cost of the extra money that has been given to former governor Scarce (that is, Royal Commissioner Scarce) in respect of the nuclear industry issues that he has tentatively reported on, he has now been given an extra $3 million to go on a roadshow and present the arguments, presumably for and against, or the information of his tentative findings for public comment to, in the Premier's words, 'test the validity of the findings that he has tentatively made.' I think 'test the accuracy' was the position of the Premier on that.

If we were to compare the cost of putting those questions to the public, presenting as to the plus and minus of those, with similarly having to do that to the same population, the same voters, in respect of these constitutional amendments which are quite complex, then I cannot possibly imagine the government's estimate (which, yes, I have received today) of approximately $1.9 million to do the referendum preparation and resolution. Remember, that whilst the public might cast their vote on a day, all of the public meetings and advertising and promotional material, communication documents, etc. would have to be done, plus you need somebody to count the referendum votes afterwards, collate the material, etc.

I find it quite extraordinary that the government is coming up with a $1.9 million cost. Recently, in this last year, the Australian Electoral Commission undertook a referendum of about 60 or so households up in the Skye district in my electorate to ask them questions about whether or not they wanted to join up to the water supply provided by SA Water. SA Water engaged the electoral commission to undertake that job and they had to issue the ballot papers to each of the residents and provide them with the information about what they were voting on, give them the information, receive them back under a postal vote arrangement, collate them and provide a report to SA Water. On that particular issue it was determined that above 75 per cent of the vote was supportive and the project in mind was progressed.

My recollection was that that cost something like $1 million and, taking into account the extra cost in that instance of SA Water departmental people to go through that process as well, it seems to me a very light-on estimate that we have just received today. I would like to know from the Attorney, although I have this paragraph of information which says:

I advise the amount estimated at this stage to conduct two referenda at the general election in 2018 is approximately $1.9 million.

The letter tells me that the amount for the Electoral Commission of South Australia to conduct it would include advertising and communications. I would like to know from whom he obtained that advice, when he obtained that advice, and whether in fact those moneys in that amount are in the budget.

He says, as he indicated in the previous bill, 'Look, these things haven't passed the parliament yet so we haven't actually put them in the budget.' That is a complete nonsense. We have the forward estimates and we have disclosed in the budget measures a provision, and under the Electoral Commission there is nothing there for the 2017-18 year, which is when the next general election will be; there is no provision in that at all.

The government proposed this like they do everything else; I can remember with the natural resources management legislation they had not only budgeted for what the funding was going to be but had actually gone out and advertised for members of the natural resources management boards. Before 30 June of the year they were proposing them to be implemented, before the legislation was passed in the parliament, they advertised and appointed these people who were going to go on the boards. They set up the whole machinery. They were making announcements about who was going to be the chief executives, or equivalent, of this new structure.

So do not come to this parliament, Attorney, with this nonsense about saying, 'Look, we don't make provision in our budget for things until legislation is passed,' because that is just a nonsense. Every day we deal with legislation in this parliament and frequently there is an identified item in the budget and/or in the budget measures that highlights why it is necessary to make provision for an initiative which may or may not receive the passage of legislation. In fact, the entire budget is presented on the basis that people still keep being paid, initiatives start, and the legislation sometimes does not pass until nine months into the financial year. That does not mean that the provision has not been made and, in many cases, applied before the legislation even passes.

If I were to use the most absurd contemporary example it would be the fact that we still have, stuck in the other place, legislation to make provision for government lands to be applied for an Anzac walk just out here in North Terrace, to commemorate the centenary of ANZAC as an important initiative of the state, local and federal governments. It is a $10 million project to put in a walkway from North Terrace down to the Torrens Parade Ground, and they are digging it up as we speak, while the legislation is still sitting in the other place.

So, Attorney, do not come in here with this nonsense about saying, 'We have not made provision for this because we haven't seen if the legislation has gone through or not.' They know this has a snowball's chance in hell; the snowball would melt before it ever got through the other place, this legislation. They have not put it in there; they just want to waste our time in this parliament with another frivolous red herring to debate and divert attention from their own incompetence in running a government. So yes, we will oppose this accompanying bill, this consequential bill, that goes with the Constitution Act reforms to introduce the new deadlock procedure in the event of there being an intransigence between both houses of parliament.

The other matter I would like to know about, in respect of this money, is whether the estimate has come from the Electoral Commissioner as to what the cost was of previous referenda. I cannot even remember the last state referendum; I think we had one at the federal level, obviously, as to whether we kept the Queen as our head of state, and before that we had a referendum on whether local government was to be recognised, I remember that one. I was too young to remember the one about whether Aboriginals should be in the census.

We have had a few over the years, admittedly Australia-wide, and clearly we must have had a referendum at the time we amended the constitution to make provision for the Electoral Boundaries Commission. So I am assuming there have been referenda, and I would like to have some data on the costs of those—again, on the basis that I assume the Electoral Commission has provided that advice.

Now we do not actually have an electoral commissioner at present: we have an acting electoral commissioner, and there are processes underway to deal with that. But the Attorney might address his mind, when he comes back to respond on this matter, to why he has not tabled the electoral commissioner's annual report which, as I have said on the last bill, had been put on the website last year. Clearly, it has been written and signed by the Acting Electoral Commissioner last year.

Whether a copy of it is still sitting on the Attorney's desk, I do not know, but the proper process is that it is to be tabled in this parliament, and I would remind him to get on with it. I am advised by the table clerks here that there is no evidence of it being tabled. I thank the Acting Electoral Commissioner for at least putting his copy on the website last year. On this bill, again I make the same acknowledgment and ask the Attorney to get on with what he is supposed to be attending to in that regard. I oppose the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.R. Kenyon.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: Madam Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the member for Davenport.