Referendum (Appropriation and Supply) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 23 February.)

The ACTING SPEAKER (The Hon. A. Piccolo): Member for Bragg, I understand you have the call.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:28): I have actually spoken, sir. I confess, I would love to speak again.

The ACTING SPEAKER (The Hon. A. Piccolo): I am not sure that is going to be seconded by anybody.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (16:28): If I can misquote Shakespeare, we have come here to praise the member for Bragg, not to listen to her. I wanted to thank her for her contributions. They have been, as always, erudite and succinct but unfortunately not comments with which I entirely agree, but there you are, that is the ever the life of—

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: That is the Westminster system.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —the Westminster system. It is one of the vexing aspects of it that we do not always agree on everything, including sometimes really good things that we are often doing. Nevertheless, I thank her for her contributions. We all realise that the referendum bill, as such, is simply a method by which the other matters of substance are being—

Ms CHAPMAN: Like majority votes.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes—delivered. On the majority vote, that is very interesting because that was not my understanding of what the law was. Anyway, there you are. You learn things as each day goes by. Thank you to everyone who contributed, and a late message to hand indicates there are a couple of things I neglected to mention.

There were some points raised in the second reading which we should address. Firstly, the member for Bragg noted this bill has been 'sloppily' drafted, in that it proposes that the question that would be put to voters at a referendum is: 'Do you approve the Constitution (Appropriation and Supply) Amendment Bill 2015?' I am assured that is not sloppy drafting, I am advised. It has been drafted having regard to the requirements of section 10A of the Constitution Act, and is consistent with the manner in which the approach was taken in relation to the last referendum in South Australia which was conducted in 1991, I am further advised.

Secondly, in the debate on the bill in the parliament, the member for Bragg indicated the Electoral Commissioner's annual report for the year ending 30 June 2015 had not been filed, and I am able to advise that it was, in fact, tabled on 1 December 2015; and that is reflected in Hansard.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am just advised of that. That is basically it.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1 passed.

Clause 2.

Ms CHAPMAN: This relates to the question to be put to the electors in the form of: 'Do you agree with the bill or not?' You have indicated in your response that that is your understanding of what occurred in 1991; that is the question that is put on the ballot paper for the referendum. As the Attorney is well aware, there is explanatory memoranda that are prepared for the pro and con of the case—and I will come to the quotes, in a minute, that you have given of the money to be applied for this purpose if it ever goes as far as to become a bill that is assented to. How is the person who is to be the elector to understand what is in the terms of the bill?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised the answer to that question is as follows: the Electoral Commission of South Australia will take the lead in terms of informing people about how to vote at the referendum—in other words, the formality of the casting of their vote.

In addition, there will be a communication strategy to inform people about the proposals that are the subject of the referendum and the arguments for and against. It is anticipated that there will be broad community engagement and discussion on the proposals that will be put at a referendum. The community strategy will aim to educate voters about the issues rather than advocate for a specific position one way or the other. This would aim to ensure electors are equipped with whatever information they would need to deal with it.

I am also advised that, in many jurisdictions, and I think, in particular, the commonwealth, there are legislative requirements associated with conducting a referendum which would require there to be a yes and a no campaign, but that is not the case in South Australia. This is probably a good thing, as there are some good questions to ask about whether the distribution of a 2,000-word written yes or no case is really the most effective way of communicating with people.

The final form of any material has obviously not been settled, because the bills have not been passed but it is proposed that there would be a balanced information sheet on the issues that go to the referendum, and the proposal to reform the deadlocks mechanism and the proposal about appropriation and supply would be both subjects of that sort of material.

Ms CHAPMAN: Whilst the question 'Do you approve the Referendum (Appropriation and Supply) Amendment Bill 2015?' is what is actually printed on the ballot paper, there will be a succinct and clear explanation as to what the effect of that would be and, obviously, it would be left open to the elector to determine whether they want to vote yes or no. Is that the process?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, and I would expect that there would be a very succinct, plain English summary of the opinions of those who are not persuaded to vote yes and, likewise, a succinct summary of the views of those who do wish to vote yes, so that people would have the chance of making up their own mind.

Ms CHAPMAN: The person who is responsible for the conduct of the referendum is identified later in the bill to be the electoral commissioner. Does he or she take responsibility for what is drafted and/or finalised in the content of the explanatory document?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that, as to the provision of information about the method by which a formal vote might be cast, that would be a matter for the electoral commissioner of the day. Inasmuch as we are talking about the preparation of the summary of yes and no propositions, that would be a government agency. I expect either AGD or DPC would be the relevant agency.

Ms CHAPMAN: In 1991, who prepared it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I would have to check.

Ms CHAPMAN: In 1991—I cannot even recall what the referendum was for—was there, similarly, a question on the ballot paper to the extent of identifying whether the elector supported a piece of legislation, or not?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: I do not think so.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: This is basically following the 1991 model and, if I am not mistaken, it was the fairness test and associated bits and pieces that was the subject of that. I am advised that the actual legislation was No. 80 of 1990, an act to provide for the submission of the Constitution (Electoral Redistribution) Amendment Bill to a referendum, and it appears that the same methodology was employed, namely, 'Do you agree with this, or don't you?'

Ms CHAPMAN: 'Do you agree with X bill?' rather than, 'Do you agree to a fairness test?' is really what I am getting to.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

Ms CHAPMAN: The conduct of the referendum is essentially to be the responsibility of the Electoral Commissioner, as is identified. In correspondence that you provided on 23 February 2016, you indicated that you would expect there would be two questions on the same ballot paper so that it would not be necessary to have two separate referenda, or even two separate ballot papers, for that matter: it would just be two questions. The cost for doing this you say is estimated at $1.9 million. Who provided that estimate?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that came from the commission.

Ms CHAPMAN: What did it cost to do the referendum in 1991?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the answer to the question is approximately $2.6 million, but significantly it did not occur in conjunction with a general election. It was a stand-alone exercise.

Ms CHAPMAN: The breakdown of the $1.9 million in respect of the costs is for conducting the referendum (which for the reasons you have just explained would be less than normally, if it had been stand-alone), advertising and communications, and any other public education that is in it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think the answer to that is yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: I was seeking the breakdown of the $1.9 million, if that could be provided.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We will try to get that. Can I say at this point—this is obviously a guess—we will try to find more particulars in that.

Ms CHAPMAN: Having asked the Electoral Commissioner to do it—that is, give an estimate of what the cost would be—you will know from forensically perusing my second reading contribution that we raised this question of the fact that there was no provision for this in the budget. There is no provision for it in the identified areas of need, even as a contingency, by the Electoral Commissioner in her annual report, which I note has been tabled. I will take it up with the table officers as to why that had not been confirmed earlier, but in any event thank you for that having been filed, nor was it in the Mid-Year Budget Review, which I would have thought would have been at least a document where that would be identified.

Bear in mind, especially in the Electoral Commissioner's report, when he or she knows an election is coming up, they identify the contingency when they know they are going to have to conduct a special provision—for example, Aboriginal territory and board elections or a special provision outside of the usual state and local government elections—and they flag it, not just in the highlights but in what we are about to receive. It just seems incredible to me that the Electoral Commissioner has provided this information but not mentioned it in the report. My question is: when was this information provided to you by the Electoral Commissioner?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think the information was provided in response to the member for Bragg's question, if I am not mistaken. I was wrong in that; we did have a number before the question was asked by the member for Bragg. If you have a look at the Mid-Year Budget Review, page 27, at the top of the page there is an estimate—and this is a contingency only—under the heading of 'Constitutional reforms', and it puts an estimate of 2.328, which includes both the amount of money (the 1.9, which was the money that I have indicated would be the cost to the Electoral Commission for them doing their bit) and then the balance would be the cost of the preparation and dissemination of the yes-no case by an agency.

Ms CHAPMAN: That is still the current estimate, then—$2.328 million?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes; if you are including both the cost to the Electoral Commission, which is the 1.9 that we were talking about, and a notional cost for the preparation and dissemination of the yes and no case, yes, that is the proposition.

Clause passed.

Remaining clause (4) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (16:46): I move:

That this bill be read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.