Electoral (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 24 September 2020.)

Clause 1.

Sitting suspended from 17:55 to 19:30.

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, it looks to me (and this is my handwriting) that you have asked two questions already on clause 1.

Mr Picton: And now I am satisfied.

The CHAIR: The member for Florey has a question on clause 1.

Ms BEDFORD: Yes, I do, sir. Can the Attorney advise what consultation was undertaken on this bill outside of government?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: From memory, I wrote to all members of the political parties in the parliament, all members of parliament, and the Child Protection Party—all registered political parties. Perhaps not all of them; I think a few completely extreme ones I probably did not. Everyone who was registered—probably the no-marijuana party.

Mr Picton: It depends who you define as 'extreme'.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Definitely not the Australian Labor Party—different but not extreme. There was the Child Protection Party; the Local Government Association; Professor Clem Macintyre of the University of Adelaide, who considered the matter, I am advised here, on behalf of Professor Lisa Hill; and Dr Jonathon Louth and Dr Glynn Evans. So the academics had a look. There was the National Party of Australia, the Animal Justice Party SA, and all the other officers appear to be the usual internals, such as the Electoral Commissioner, etc.

Ms BEDFORD: How many of those groups responded?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have half a dozen here, but my adviser will have the details of them. If I add them up, five are of those we sent to. I read out that list as though they were not just the responses but those who were consulted. Sorry, I will make sure that I have this correct.

Just to be complete, there was the Australian Labor Party; the Liberal Party SA; the National Party of Australia; the Australian Greens SA; the Animal Justice Party SA; SA-Best Incorporated; the Hon. John Darley for Advance SA; the Child Protection Party; Professor Haydon Manning and Professor Dean Jaensch from Flinders University; Professor Macintyre I have referred to at the University of Adelaide; Antony Green, Chief Elections Analyst; and then each of the members of the parliament.

Then, as I say, we usually look at how they responded. The Child Protection Party partially supported it. The Local Government Association supported the corflute ban and sought to extend the ban to local government elections, which I think we already canvassed in the legislation last night. The University of Adelaide partially supported it. It was concerned about the removal of the requirement to advertise in newspapers, it suggested an amendment to the itinerant voter provision, it did not express a view on the corflute plan and it did not support OPV.

The National Party partially supported it. They raised concerns about the expansion of pre-poll voting and advertising on websites. I am not quite sure whether that means we should not do it at all but, in any event, I am just indicating what I am advised here. They supported the corflute ban and did not support OPV. The Animal Justice Party partially supported it but opposed OPV. They are from the submissions that we got back.

Ms BEDFORD: What moneys have been provided to the Electoral Commission for implementation of this bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Certainly, we would not presume the parliament's decision on this matter. This would be a matter for consideration of any budgetary expenses. We will consult with the Electoral Commissioner if and when the electoral reforms here pass. As you might appreciate, a significant amount of this bill is a result of recommendations of the Electoral Commissioner. Some of those are machinery matters, but in relation to something like OPV or any change of implementation of the corflute laws or whatever, which I would say are government initiatives as distinct from those emanating from the Electoral Commissioner, then obviously they are matters where we would only progress to deal with the costing after, if there is an expense.

When we looked at OPV, for example, under the previous government, and the matter was raised with us, there was a suggestion at the time by the Hon. John Rau that there would be some transfer arrangements and some implementation costs, but I do not recall them being substantial. It would have been a change of format and rewriting of the material and information, etc., for websites. There are always some costs associated with reform in electoral matters, not the least of which is the education of the electorate. Last time around, of course, they had to be educated on the new partial OPV that was introduced for the Legislative Council.

The CHAIR: No further questions?

Ms Bedford: I have had three, so I would be pushing my luck.

The CHAIR: You are. I am sure you will be able to flesh out, as we go through, what you need to know.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Ms BEDFORD: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bedford–1]—

Page 3, line 13 [clause 4(2)]—Delete subclause (2)

This amendment is the first of several that relate to optional preferential voting. Other than my amendments Nos 8, 9 and 10 and those moved in the second schedule in my name, all my other amendments are related to this and I imagine they will be consequential upon this amendment. In my second reading contribution, I outlined a number of the reasons why I oppose the proposal to introduce optional preferential voting.

I reiterate the point that if members closely examine the information about voting tickets in the ECSA report of the 2018 election they will find that not only were there 40,067 votes validated by voting tickets but also there were a number of seats where the outcome of these votes made a significant contribution to the overall result. There were eight seats with 1,000 or more votes validated by voting tickets. Indeed, 13,212 votes validated by voting tickets were cast for Independents and minor parties which, in a number of close contests, could have had a decisive outcome. I commend the amendment.

Mr PICTON: I indicate that the opposition is supporting the amendment moved by the member for Florey.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The government included clause 4(2) of the bill to debate the definition of 'registered voting ticket' as a consequence of the amendments to allow optional preferential voting in the House of Assembly. Voting tickets are used to interpret votes that do not indicate an order of preference for all candidates. If it is no longer compulsory to number all boxes of the ballot, there is no need for voting tickets. Therefore, the government opposes the member for Florey's deletion of clause 4(2) of the bill, which would leave the definition of 'registered voting ticket' in the Electoral Act.

The member for Florey opposes optional preferential voting. I note that and I understand at least the basis for that. I am tempted to ask some questions about why there had been support for optional preferential voting, which would seem to suffer the same weakness as supporting the arguments by the member for Florey to oppose this optional preferential voting, relative to the Legislative Council. However, I think that would probably fall on deaf ears.

I note that the member has in the past supported optional preferential voting for the Legislative Council. I would assert that it has been a very successful recommendation of the former Labor government, through the Hon. John Rau, and that this would also be welcome and effective, adding to the efficiency, and most importantly giving voters a choice not to have to fill out the whole of the ticket.

That was one of the arguments that was put, of course, in the Legislative Council. I acknowledge they are different voting systems, in the sense of the way their votes are counted and accumulated. In any event, I indicate that the government does not support this amendment.

Ms BEDFORD: Is it not the weakness in that argument that you are comparing apples with oranges and that this chamber is completely different to the other chamber, irrespective of the voting system used? We are not talking about the same sort of election process, so are you not comparing apples with oranges?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I appreciate that, and I indicated there is a distinction between the way people are elected, by quota and otherwise. If the weakness in having OPV is that deals can be done to exclude minor parties, well—hello—what do you think happened in the upper house? In any event, I note that it is the position of the member for Florey and it is being supported by the opposition. We do not agree with it and I will not be supporting the amendment.

Mr PICTON: I would like to make a comment on this because it is something that the Attorney raised in her summing-up speech as well. It neglects the fact that these are two completely separate chambers with two completely separate electoral systems. This is the system of single-member electorates. The other place is a system of one multi-member electorate; therefore, to compare the system in the other place with the system in place here is completely ridiculous. As the member for Florey says, is it comparing apples with oranges.

There is every chance, in a system where you are electing 11 people out of the same electorate, that it does allow other voices to be heard. It does allow Independents and minor parties to be elected. Whereas a single-member electorate, if you are going down this path, is only going to entrench major parties—in particular, the Attorney-General's political party—through that system.

The federal parliament has a similar system to ours, where an OPV-style arrangement exists in the multi-member Senate system but not in the single-member electorates in the House of Representatives. I think it is important that we make the distinction that they are apples and oranges. That is why the federal parliament has this distinction and that is why we have had this distinction here and we should keep that.

Ayes 20

Noes 21

Majority 1

The CHAIR: Member for Florey, I am giving you the call. Can you indicate what you are going to do now with amendments Nos 2 through to 7?

Ms BEDFORD: I said in my opening remarks that I could be forced to consider them consequential, so they could be consequential. If the Attorney wants to consider them as consequential I am happy for that to be the case. I do have an interest in clause 14, which is my second schedule.

The CHAIR: I take it from that, member for Florey, that you will not be moving amendments Nos 2 through to 7?

Ms BEDFORD: That is correct. I will retire hurt on those.

Clause passed.

Clauses 5 to 9 passed.

Clause 10.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I move:

Amendment No 1 [AG–1]—

Page 3, after line 29—Insert:

(a1) Section 31A(9)(b)—delete paragraph (b)

I am advised that clause 10 has the effect of deleting paragraph (b) and I am further advised that if that is successful there would be an automatic renumbering so that it would not need to have an (a) and (b); it would be left with only (a) and will be accommodated in the amendment, so I do not need to move anything to deal with that.

The government amendment is a consequential amendment to the amendments already included in clause 10 of the bill relating to itinerant persons. Clause 10(2) deletes subparagraph (iii) of section 31A(10)(c), which means that itinerant persons who are outside the state for a continuous period of more than one month will no longer lose their status as itinerant electors. There will not be any point in requiring itinerant electors to give notice under section 31A(9)(b) of their intent to leave the state and remain outside the state for a continuous period of at least one month. The government amendment therefore deletes paragraph (b).

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 11.

Mr PICTON: There are a number of places where the Attorney is seeking to remove newspaper advertisements in relation to notifications. This is one of a number of clauses where this appears to occur, and I will ask the question in relation to this clause. Why is the government seeking to do this and what impact would that have upon regional media outlets in South Australia?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: This legislation sets only a minimum requirement. If it is the view of the Electoral Commissioner for any particular aspect, he is at liberty to put it in local newspapers if he wishes to do so, and therefore can still advertise in newspapers as he considers necessary and appropriate. I think there were multiple occasions under the previous government where the modernising of the publication of either government information or notices was moved to recognise the electronic opportunities that are available in the 21^st century, and I do not have any disagreement with them.

There were sometimes occasions where we said that we needed to prop up the financial base of the print media, but I do not know of any local newspapers in the country that do not have an electronic option, so they have seen the benefit in having that. Often, I think I am one of the few people in this house who still reads country newspapers in print, I like to, so I buy the printed copy. Unfortunately for those who enjoy the print media, that view is not necessarily shared by others.

It is not just a generational thing. As more and more people in the country become linked or have access, because there has not always been good coverage for these things so it has not always been an easy option. If you are living in a rural part of the community and have to follow the daily or hourly changes in wool prices or anything else, you learn to have those skills, and watching sales prices is necessary for the purchasing of equipment and dealing with your various suppliers and/or those you deal with for the sale of your product or service. This is all part of modern business.

Therefore, I suppose it is easier to have that online than to check the local paper. Again, it has at least a daily uptake of material, sometimes on a continuous basis, because that is the modern era of news reporting. Page 43 of the election report sets out the Electoral Commissioner's desire to book pages. It is not just rural papers—quite a lot of notices go in The Advertiser, which is our daily metropolitan paper. I am told that it is reported that ECSA is required to book four consecutive pages in The Advertiser at a cost of approximately $42,000. It is a recommendation that has been put to us, we have accepted it and we are presenting it for your consideration.

The CHAIR: I did not find this in the print media, but just on wool prices I note there have been significant gains for the last two days, so there you go. That is an aside, of course, but it was mentioned in the Attorney's contribution.

Mr PICTON: Thank you for the aside. Procedurally, the member for Florey had a question on an earlier clause that we skipped through.

Ms Bedford: It was more than a question; I was going to oppose the clause.

Mr PICTON: Or more than a question. Is there any possibility, procedurally, of turning backwards to clause 5?

The CHAIR: Let me consult on this. Which clause was it, member for Florey?

Ms BEDFORD: I actually was going to oppose clause 5, but in my copious notes I missed the page.

The CHAIR: So that is a little while ago now?

Ms Bedford: Yes, I am quite happy. I will just oppose clause 12, which will be the next clause. I will double-down on 12.

The CHAIR: You seem intent on opposing something, member for Florey.

Clause passed.

Clause 12.

Mr PICTON: I do have a few questions before we get to the member for Florey's indication—

Ms Bedford: Fierce opposition.

Mr PICTON: —of fierce opposition to clause 12. As I read it, clause 12 is changing the number of days from six to two after the writs are issued before the electoral roll closes. Why the Attorney would want to do that, I have no idea, other than it looks to make it harder for people to enrol to vote for an election, which seems to be a retrograde step when we see other states moving to enrolment up to election day. Why is the government making it harder for people to vote by reducing the number of days before the roll closes after the writs are issued?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The Electoral Commissioner recommended the change to the dates for the close of the rolls to two days after the issue of the writ rather than the current six days. This did not come from me but from the Electoral Commissioner.

Mr Picton: Unlike OPV.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As we have made very clear, there are items in this legislation, namely, banning or regulation of corflutes and OPV, which directly come from the government, but I think pretty much without any other exception, unless it is consequential, the rest of this is a result of recommendations that have been put by the Electoral Commissioner. If you just bear with me, I will explain his reason for this. He states:

This will also bring forward the date fixed by nomination, which is three days after the close of rolls, and allow a greater time for issuing postal votes. I refer to section 48(3)(a), which has an impact on the date fixed for nomination in section 48(4)(a). This request by ECSA to amend section 48 was provided directly to AGD and does not form part of the election report.

He is the one who manages these elections. I think the member would be fully aware of some of the challenges of postal voting now that it is a service which, quite frankly, is very different from what it was 10 years ago. If the time it takes for the delivery of material via the general post was snail pace before, it is glacial pace now.

Ms Bedford: Well, your federal colleagues should fix that up.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member suggests that, but the reality is that the postal product has changed significantly. Again, let's appreciate this: package deliveries have massively increased because people buy things online and, unfortunately, letter writing seems to be an ever-increasingly dying art. I do not know of any supplier that I deal with who does not write to me regularly to transfer to electronic payment. That is just the way it is. 'Please give me invoices,' I say, 'because I want to keep a hard copy of those things'. I am one of those people who insists: I am happy to pay for it electronically, but I want a copy sent to me.

Ms Bedford: Have you still got a chequebook?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do indeed. I do not I always use it. The reality is there are some important things to be done in relation to the record keeping, and I am a bit of a stickler for that. However, this recognises that there is a certain service of Australia Post delivery that is much different from what it was. It has had an impact, at least in the last two elections that I can recall, where concerns have been raised by people who have sought to have a postal vote and then realised that they will be jammed in between either getting their material back in time before they depart or, for whatever reason, not being available during the pre-poll period.

We think the pre-poll period under our proposal is generous and we think so for good reason: to give people an option to be able to utilise that and some of that is because of what we are really pressed up against. We have constitutional obligations and the Electoral Commissioner says, 'I would like this amendment so that it can provide some relief and give some better time for the postal vote applicants but also obviously make the management of that easier for him.'

It is not easier for him, but obviously more efficient to ensure that, if you are going to be available on election day and vote, fine. If you are going to be able to access pre-poll, fine. But if you do need a postal vote, which is particularly important for people who are not going to be in Australia during the period of pre-poll leading up to the election, that is something I think should be considered and I commend it to the parliament.

Mr PICTON: Why is it not possible that we could have an extension of time in which you can enrol to vote? Every other state has the same challenges in terms of the postal service, yet other states have been expanding the amount of time that you can enrol to vote and some states, as I understand, have it right up until election day when you can enrol to vote, even though they are using exactly the same postal service that we have here in South Australia. So what work has the government done to look at other states and their expansion of the enrolment time, rather than their attempt to reduce it, which is only going to disenfranchise people?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am not sure about other states precisely, but I do know that Tasmania has their election on the same day that we do, so I think they have the same process. You are shaking your head no?

Mr PICTON: They have a flexible date. It has just been coincidence that it has been on the same day.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: They have a flexible date. Occasionally, it has been at the same time. In any event, here is the rationale. The reasoning for the changes, as discussed on page 51 of the election report, is:

Postal voting at the 2018 State Election was affected by a number of issues that highlighted the unsuitability of the legislative deadlines for applying for and returning postal votes, currently 5pm on the Thursday two days prior to the polling day for the former, and 6pm on the Saturday after polling day for the latter. These issues included:

1,823 postal vote applications which arrived after the deadline and consequently could not be processed. No ballots were sent out to these electors and it was not possible to advise them in time for polling day to make other arrangements to vote.

1,232 postal ballots which arrived after the deadline for the return of completed postal votes. These votes could not be processed and hence did not count in the Election.

These numbers constitute in ECSA's view a strong indication that the current postal service is not capable of meeting the timeframes for postal voting stipulated by legislation.

The deadlines themselves are vestiges of a bygone era. The two-day deadline to apply for a postal vote dates back to the birth of the current Act in 1985, while the seven-day deadline to return a postal vote has remained unchanged since 1955.

Goodness, that was before I was born. It continues:

It is clear from Australia Post's current delivery times that the two-day deadline to apply for a postal vote is too late to ensure ballot papers reach anyone other than metropolitan Adelaide electors in time to vote at the election.

After carefully considering the different solutions available…

I repeat that:

After carefully considering the different solutions available, ECSA requests that Parliament move the deadline to apply for a postal vote. Two factors need to be considered here: Australia Post's delivery times; and the interruption to postal services provided by the Adelaide Cup public holiday on the Monday prior to polling day.

ECSA made the following recommendation, which is reflected in the bill:

That the Act be amended to modify the timeframes for postal voting, bringing forward the deadline to apply for a postal vote from 5pm on Thursday prior to polling day to:

i. 5pm on the Tuesday prior to polling day for applications from South Australian locations; and

ii. 5pm on Friday eight days prior to polling day for applications for interstate and overseas locations.

The amendments are set out as we have discussed. ECSA recommended the change to the date for the close of rolls: the rolls close two days after the date of the issue of the writ, rather than the current six days. This will also bring forward the date fixed by nomination, which is three days from the close of rolls, and allow a greater time for issuing postal votes. So the amendments are there for all to see. This request by ECSA to amend section 48 was provided directly to the AGD and did not form part of the election report.

That is as much as I can give you. He has considered it. He has considered options and he has put this recommendation to us. I suppose between the houses, if the member wanted to have a meeting—I do not know whether you have availed yourself of the opportunity to have a meeting with the Electoral Commissioner on this at any time, but you can of course. He has published a report in relation to his recommendations. I am sure a further briefing could be provided if you want to raise with him why he did not pick up whatever your proposal is as an option.

Mr PICTON: Given that the Attorney is saying that this was not provided in the election report but that there is a separate advice she has received from the Electoral Commissioner, would she make that available to members of parliament either now by tabling it or between the houses so that we can all see in black and white what the commissioner said?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Obviously, he is an agency. He is a statutory officer. I do not want to be handing over documents. I cannot recall what specifically is otherwise in it. So can we work on this basis: we will make a time available for the member to meet with the Electoral Commissioner to have a full briefing in relation to his recommendations. Most of them are outlined in his report but others have come during the course of consultation. If he consents to the letter being available, I will make an inquiry about that as well as to any other response that he has put in addition to his report.

Ms BEDFORD: Of course, it was remiss of me not to raise my issues on clause 5, which are very much part of what we are talking about now. As the member has said, this clause reduces the number of days after the issuing of the writs for the closure of the roll to two rather than six. I have been advised this is consequential upon the changes to the postal voting deadlines. I think we could surely organise around postal voting deadlines without denying citizens the right to update their enrolment details.

I quite like the member's suggestion about being able to enrol right up until election day, which other states do. So my question to the Attorney is: can she explain what options the Electoral Commissioner of South Australia considered about changing these enrolment procedures? Which ones did he look at to see how he could preserve the six-day rather than two-day window?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think that is another version of the member for Kaurna's question, with respect. In response to it, in addition to the material I have just outlined which confirms that he had considered other options, I do not have the particulars of those but I offer the member for Florey the same option to meet with the Electoral Commissioner to raise any of these questions.

If he provides consent for a copy of his correspondence in relation to this issue, then we will be happy to forward it on. But if he is happy to provide information that he has sent to us on any of the matters seeking tweaking and so on of the amendments that he has sought, I will arrange for a copy to be sent to you as well. If you let us know this week if you would like to meet with the Electoral Commissioner, we will try to get him down here at a convenient time. I am not sure he will be available tomorrow but I am just thinking you are both in a metropolitan location. Unless, of course, the member for Frome wants to have a briefing as well, we could try to do something.

The Hon. G.G. Brock: Yes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, alright. If you can let me know in the next 24 hours if anyone who is interested in this would like to meet with him, we will see if we can set something up long enough ahead so that country members can come if they are interested.

Ms BEDFORD: Longer than the time to enrol, you mean. But it will be more than two days. I do not understand, though, why we cannot have the same sorts of courtesies as we have had in the past, where between the houses you might supply that information. We do not want the whole document. Surely, you are able to give us some examples of what he actually considered without him having to come and tell us that.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, member for Florey, perhaps you had not picked up what I was putting to the member for Kaurna.

Ms Bedford: No need to be condescending. I am listening to you. I am just asking why can't you?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I indicated to him, I am happy to get his permission. If he is happy for the correspondence to be made available, I will do so, and that may make it perfectly clear. I do not have it with me, so I do not have any comprehension of what else is in it or whether he is happy for me to give it to you. But if he is, and there is any other correspondence relating to the development of the amendments that he is generally seeking, I am happy to make that inquiry and make it available.

It may be that on having that you say, 'We do not need to see him at all. It is pretty clear.' It may be that he is opaque in his disclosure as to what precisely the other options are that he has looked at. But that is as I am advised. That is the best I can do at this point: provide the information, which will be as soon as we can identify the documents and get his permission and, secondly, make an offer for a personal meeting with him if you wish to have it.

We are all members of parliament and he is accountable to the parliament. I do not know whether any members have availed themselves of this since they have had his reports—or indeed those of the previous electoral commissioner, when we had her reports—but he is a commissioner and he is available to be spoken to and met with for the purposes of members making their decisions on these matters. He has given the report to the parliament, we are acting on it, and you are certainly entitled to meet with him. We will assist you to make that appointment if you want it.

Ms BEDFORD: I would also like to ask the Attorney how many voters updated their enrolment at the last election on the third, fourth, fifth and sixth days after the issue of the writs? In other words, how many people would this amendment disenfranchise? Is that something I can ask you, or do we have to have a briefing for that?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Could that be repeated?

Ms BEDFORD: How many voters updated their enrolment at the last election on the third, fourth, fifth and sixth days after the issue of the writs? In other words, how many people will this amendment disenfranchise? Is this a question I can put to you or is that something we need to put to the commissioner?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not have the answer to how many were lodged in those days. It may be that he has that record. It may be that they were accumulated over the time frame he has under the current law and there are no ways or means of identifying those that had come in within the relevant cut off period. It is a question that would be better put to him.

As to how many would be disenfranchised, it would only be if they refused or failed to put their application in within the new two-day time that they would be disenfranchised from this option of one of three different ways of voting—postal, pre-poll or on the day in person. There may be some who would think, 'Okay, I can't deal with it in two days, so I'll make other arrangements, I'll do a pre-poll.'

There may be some who miss out, as they have here: he has identified several thousand who, for different reasons, have missed out, and he wants to address this. I suggest it is a matter that the member—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: He has pointed out that there is a delay in the return of these, and that is a consequence of not sorting it out at the beginning. That is his recommended remedy. They are all matters you could canvass with the electoral commissioner if, for any reason, you have not met with him already.

The committee divided on the clause:

Ayes 21

Noes 19

Majority 2

Clause 13 passed.

Clause 14.

Ms BEDFORD: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bedford–2]—

Page 5, after line 23—Insert:

(11) Section 53—after subsection (8) insert:

(8a) In nominating candidates under this section, the registered officer of a registered political party must seek to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable—

(a) in relation to the nomination of candidates endorsed by the party for election in a general election—that women are nominated as candidates in approximately 50 per cent of the districts in which the candidate of the party has a reasonable prospect of being elected; and

(b) in relation to the nomination of candidates endorsed by the party for election in a Legislative Council election—that the order in which the names of the candidates are to be included in the relevant group set out on the ballot paper is such that approximately 50 per cent of the candidates that have a reasonable prospect of being elected are women.

Members may be aware of media reports recently regarding the very low level of representation of women in South Australia's parliament. For the state that first created women's equal suffrage, including the right to stand to be elected to parliament, we are now very much lagging. That is why I say it is time for action and why, when we have a bill before us dealing with electoral matters, this is a perfect opportunity to do something.

The amendment is modest, but it is a nudge in the right direction. In simple terms, the amendment will require registered political parties that field more than five candidates in a general election to have at least 35 per cent female and male candidates, with a sanction if they fail to comply of not receiving public funding for that election. Public funding of elections is a recent reform to our electoral system. I think it is fair, if political parties are going to receive taxpayer dollars, they should meet some minimum standards of representation in the candidates they offer.

Manifestly, this has not been happening, so this is, as I said, a small prod in the right direction, which I hope means we can accelerate representation of women in parliament ahead of the 2050 time line forecast by the Electoral Commission briefing paper at the current rate of change. By-elections are excluded from my amendment and both houses are included. A provision in the amendment encourages but does not mandate parties to preselect female candidates for winnable seats. Perhaps at a future stage such a provision will be necessary, but it is probably best to start with principle first and then scale up.

Lastly, this amendment includes a provision requiring regular review after each election. That way, if there is a need to change the approach, this can be achieved. I commend the amendment to the house.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Although I appreciate the sentiment of the member's aspiration with this model of having some equitable representation on a gender basis, I indicate the government will oppose the clause because it seeks to impose a quota on women candidates nominated by political parties. I do not understand even how it could possibly be a situation if an Independent stands. Do two Independents have to stand? One woman and one man? The reality is the Labor Party has had quotas for its provision of advancement of women in parliamentary representation. It clearly has not worked, but in any event it does not mean—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —that the aspiration is not meritorious, but I fail to see—it diminishes that important grassroots preselection process to operate—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: All the men shout out, of course, from the Australian Labor Party about whether they think it has worked or not, but look around, there is not gender equity in the Labor Party.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: At least in the Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division)—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —we have constitutional obligations in relation to where there are two positions for political representation within our political party. I can compare and contrast as much as you will. I repeat: in my view, the quota system has been—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! Attorney, could you take your seat for a minute, please. I am loath to do this but I am going to call members of the opposition to order. The leader and the member for Lee are called to order.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Why are you loath, sir—because you are on our side?

The CHAIR: Well, I was briefly. I am loath to do it because we are in committee and it is the evening and we still have a lot of work to get through this, so I am calling two to order.

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The CHAIR: Leader! You have been called to order.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In relation to the member's proposal, which does propose to invoke a quota system to achieve this, as I say, the quota system has been a demonstrable failure in the Australian Labor Party—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I can hear chortling from the male members who have thrown a bone to the women in that party to have a quota system. 'You have got a quota system over here, but we won't give you anything important. We won't give you any good seats.' So to introduce a policy—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —which has, I think, been where women in the Australian Labor Party have been rudely treated in relation to the expectation they have, that is unfortunate because for those like you, member for Florey, who have had a genuine interest in the advancement of women, including in representation in parliaments, that is to your credit—probably the reason why you are no longer a member of the Australian Labor Party, but good for you. Unfortunately, they will keep sitting over there, keeping the delusional view that they are doing something for women, yet crushing them at every opportunity.

Ms BEDFORD: I must protest, sir.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not participate in that, so I will not be supporting—

The CHAIR: There is a point of order.

Ms BEDFORD: The members of the opposition are not delusional.

The CHAIR: Member for Florey, could you—

Ms BEDFORD: They're not delusional.

The CHAIR: Would you mind repeating that, member for Florey?

Ms Bedford: They are not delusional.

The CHAIR: Could you stand up, please?

Ms BEDFORD: Well, I hardly have been able to hear the Attorney all night; she is mumbling today. I do not think it is fair to label the members of the opposition 'delusional'. I have most firsthand experience, and I can tell you they are not.

The CHAIR: Well, you are not officially a member of the opposition, of course, so are you taking offence to this?

Ms BEDFORD: No, but I think I have the most relevant experience in this place to give that opinion.

The CHAIR: It turns out that nobody has really taken offence to the word 'delusional'. I do not consider it unparliamentary. Keep in mind that I have called a couple of members to order already.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Chuck me out, sir. Name me; send me home.

The CHAIR: No, I'm not going to do that, member for West Torrens—no such luck.

An honourable member interjecting:

The CHAIR: No, it's not that. I am going to ask that members of the opposition listen in silence to the Attorney-General.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Given all of that, member for Florey, I indicate that the government will not be supporting this amendment.

Mr PICTON: The opposition will be supporting the member for Florey's amendment, and that is because we do support getting women into parliament, and we do support having female candidates, and we do have a shadow cabinet which is 50 per cent men and 50 per cent women.

An honourable member: For the first time in the history of the state.

Mr PICTON: For the first time in the history of this state. Those who sit opposite sit in a party room with the lowest percentage of female representation of any major political party in the country, and they have the gall to lecture us on the fact that we are promoting women, the fact that we are getting women elected to parliament. Since we have adopted our policy of quotas, it has continued to rise and rise. We have had women of quality, of intelligence, of gravitas elected to parliament—state, federal, around the country—and all political parties should be seeking to do the same thing.

That is why we are supporting this amendment—because we should not have a parliament that does not represent the people of this state. We should not have a parliament where everybody looks like me. We should have a parliament where everybody is represented—

The CHAIR: Don't sell yourself short, member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: —where there are men and women equally. We do have far to go, but we are a state that has a proud history in terms of the rights of women to vote and run for parliament. But, sadly, after that happened we were a state in which there was very slow progress compared with the rest of the country and around the world, and it has only been in the last couple of decades that we really have started to see more and more women getting elected to parliament.

We still have further to go, but it is a fair shade better on this side of the parliament than it is on the other side of the parliament. This amendment by the member for Florey would go a long way in terms of making sure that all political parties do the same thing, and that is why we are supporting this amendment.

Ayes 19

Noes 21

Majority 2

The CHAIR: The member for Lee, coming back to you, I think you may have a question on clause 14.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As I peruse clause 14, I see subclause (5), which reads:

(5) Section 53(3)(b)—delete ', signed by each candidate, that he or she'

This seems to be an effort by the Attorney's bill to remove gender specificity within the bill, and it almost seems to continue on quite neatly from the conversation we have just been having about the benefits of having quotas for political parties in promoting genders other than men, if I can put it like that, into positions within political parties, into the parliament, let alone into leadership positions within the parliament. My question for the Attorney is: why are there so few women in the cabinet?

The CHAIR: Is that a question? I do not know that I can really accept that.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The CHAIR: It felt more like a statement to me, but either way I am not going to count it as a relevant question, member for Lee. Perhaps you would like to rephrase it.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Sure. Could the Attorney advise the house why the member for Morphett was promoted into cabinet ahead of the member for Elder?

The CHAIR: No. That question is out of order.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: Out of order?

The CHAIR: That question, yes. It is not relevant to the clause. One more go, redrafted.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It is clear to all of us in the chamber that the Attorney takes on a mentoring role for the member for Elder. When will she actually convert her concern into an actual promotion for the member for Elder to a position in cabinet?

The CHAIR: No, member for Lee, I am not going to accept that either. Anyway, you have made your point.

Clause passed.

Clauses 15 and 16 passed.

Clause 17.

Ms BEDFORD: I am going to oppose the repeal of section 60A in line with my opposition to all other of these measures this evening. This is an important part of it.

Mr PICTON: The opposition supports the opposition proposed by the member for Florey to this clause.

The committee divided on the clause:

Ayes 21

Noes 19

Majority 2

Clause thus passed.

Clauses 18 to 20 passed.

Clause 21.

Ms BEDFORD: If I understand it correctly, this clause purports to delete the requirement to ask for the principal place of residence of a voter. Of course, questions on the principal place of residence have for other reasons become a matter of interest in this house, so my question is: can the Attorney-General advise whether any such options were considered by the ECSA, the options being alternative approaches that have not been considered; something that we could look at in the way to make sure that principal places of residence are in fact correct?

I notice that the ECSA has suggested it should be deleted as it would trespass on the rights of silent voters. Of course, silent enrolment is very important and must be respected and retained, but I cannot see why we cannot ask for the principal place of residence of a voter.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I thank the member for the question on this because, as she rightly points out, the question of the identity of persons who are silent voters is a difficult one—difficult to the extent that there is provision in the Electoral Act to enable silent voters to keep their particulars confidential, for obvious reasons.

I have written to the Electoral Commissioner on a number of occasions over the years to submit applications on behalf of persons who wish to remain anonymous regarding any record of their address. It largely arises out of circumstances of domestic violence and/or victims of crime of which there is further potential for predatory behaviour on them. It is a pretty serious matter, but they are sensitive issues. It is the Electoral Commissioner's view that it is simply not appropriate to ask silent voters their place of residence.

Ms Bedford: Is he serious?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: This is his view. I am just putting his view. You can say, 'Is he serious?' He is serious to us, and we have accepted it and we are presenting it to the parliament for consideration. That is his view. The identity can be established by the existing provisions, which provide that the authorised officer can put further questions as are necessary to establish whether a person is entitled to vote. That is his view, and he has presented this to us for consideration. We respect it. We are presenting it to the parliament for consideration. I urge you to support it.

Ms BEDFORD: Am I to take from that that it is the position of the Electoral Commission, supported by you, that the current register of silent voters has not been working?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, it does work.

Ms BEDFORD: Well, that is what you were saying in your answer, if I understood you correctly, that this was the important reason we were not going to consider the principal place of residence. Have I misunderstood you?

The CHAIR: Attorney, do you have the question? Would you be able to reply?

Ms BEDFORD: My understanding of your reply to me was this has to change because the system of registering silent voters has not been protecting the people you mentioned.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Potentially. It is his view. He does not make this inquiry, and that is why he has asked us to formally remove the words 'and the address of the principal place of residence'. He does not think it is appropriate that that be asked, and he has indicated his other means by which he identifies whether someone is eligible to vote. If the member has any problem with that and wants to tease out with him how he does that, then by all means, at the opportunity to meet with him I have invited you to avail yourself of, ask him just that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Can the Attorney-General confirm to the house that this amendment is a direct request of the Electoral Commissioner?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes—have you not been listening?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Will the advice that the Electoral Commissioner supposedly provided to you be made publicly available, or are we all to convene one-on-one meetings with the Electoral Commissioner at your behest?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No. Perhaps the member was not listening as intently as other members who have been listening carefully and are aware that an offer has been made for us to make arrangements for an appointment for any members who are interested in this matter.

Mr Odenwalder: But we are voting now. We are voting on the bill now.

The CHAIR: Order, member for Elizabeth! If you want to ask a question, you will get a chance.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That remains open and available to do so. If members have already availed themselves over the last two years of a meeting with the Electoral Commissioner when they received the election reports—and there have been several of them, the bulk of which has been presented here today for consideration—then they may have already done that because these reports have been tabled in the parliament. It is open for them to do that, and it is set out very clearly.

What has been canvassed is that there are some matters that have been raised separately in correspondence from the Electoral Commissioner during the consultation on this bill that he has sought further. As I have indicated already to members, we are going to check with him about making that available to members in addition. It is direct correspondence, but we can make it available if he agrees to it; if not, then of course it can be raised in the meeting with him if they want to have it.

I repeat that I can only indicate to you what has been presented to us in very thick comprehensive reports that have been tabled here in the parliament. I urge members to read them if they have not. In the alternative, there is a 1½ page memo that has apparently been sent to us. If there is nothing difficult in it and he is happy for me to give it to you, it will be distributed. It may add some illumination on his view on some of these minor points, but most of these are already in his very substantial reports post the state election.

There is a separate one in relation to election funding, which the content of this bill has not covered. Ultimately, when we discuss that matter further with him, we will indicate what he might need. I have invited him to advise us if there is anything urgent he thinks needs to be sorted out in relation to the public funding and disclosure part of the electoral laws, and so far I have not heard from him on that.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: We will be forgiven for not being able to rely on the Deputy Premier's advice in this regard. We are told on the one hand that there are voluminous election reports which are provided after elections—true, and I assume that we have all pored through them with great interest. However, we are also told that there is a memo of approximately 1½ pages in length, which has been provided to the Attorney and to the Attorney only to the exclusion of other members of parliament, which contains advice pertaining specifically to clause 21 and the removal of the principal place of residence requirement, which we have not had access to.

The Attorney says, 'Trust me, this is what he wants.' Well, unfortunately, we cannot trust the Attorney because we have been here before. We have been here before with the bill that is still before the house on the Freedom of Information Act. We were told that amendments to that bill are consistent with the desire of the Ombudsman—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIR: There is a point of order, member for Lee.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —and we have had the Ombudsman criticise that bill publicly—

The CHAIR: Member for Lee, there is a point of order; you take your seat.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Firstly, the freedom of information bill is a matter before the parliament and it is not the subject of this debate. Secondly, I do take great offence at the member's assertion that he cannot trust the information that I am reliant on. I have had that information provided to me by the advisors, confirmed today, and I am satisfied—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: Well, table it. Table it. He is a statutory officer; table it.

The CHAIR: Attorney, could you sit down. I am going to rule on that point of order. I understand that the Attorney has taken offence to the comment from the member for Lee that—

Mr Malinauskas: He can't trust her.

The CHAIR: Yes. I can understand how she would find that offensive. She has indicated that.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: No, I—

An honourable member interjecting:

The CHAIR: Don't argue! Member for Lee, I am going to ask you to withdraw, please.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Mr Chair, I am sorry, but before I do I would like the opportunity to explain myself, because we have been down this path before. I was provided an assurance, as was the member for Kaurna, when we were discussing a previous bill—the COVID-19 emergency powers bill—that there were national standards that had been adopted by other states about how commercial tenancies and rental relief regimes were being applied around the country. We were given that assurance.

When it went before the other place (the Legislative Council) it turned out that the Treasurer said that was not the fact at all. So we had previously been provided assurances by the Attorney in a committee stage during a bill which have been shown to be subsequently false. I am sorry, I cannot rely on the Attorney's assurance in this regard. There is no advice from the Electoral Commissioner. I cannot trust the Attorney that this is what the Electoral Commissioner wants in the absence of this advice. So I am sorry, I cannot trust the Attorney. If she finds that offensive, stand offended.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The bill was introduced on 23 July. The Labor Party members were given a briefing on 2 September and the House of Assembly crossbench on 7 September. This is a part of the bill that has been on the table since 23 July. I have made an indication to other members that if they want to raise matters relating to recommendations of the Electoral Commissioner that they have not availed themselves to date—I cannot really make any comment in that regard, but I am happy to make him available further for that purpose. I do not have to do that. He is a statutory officer of the parliament. They can make an appointment to see him.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I have clearly made a point in the committee to date, there is an extra piece of material that has been provided. We have to check on two things: one, is there any other material in the course of the development of the bill that might have come to the Electoral Commissioner? I have indicated to the committee members who have been taking an interest in this matter that I will check with the Electoral Commissioner if they can be made available as well, because he has made some other commentary along the way. I can also set up an appointment for them if they wish, but this has been here since 23 July.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, I am going to ask that we come back to the focus of this debate, please, which is clause 21.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Without labouring the point, if a minister of the Crown asserts that a statutory officer has an opinion on an amendment and has requested it, I do not think it is unreasonable for the committee to ask to see that advice or at least have it quoted to the house.

I do not understand the reticence of the Attorney, and somehow putting the onus back on us, because we have not specifically asked the Electoral Commissioner whether he asked for this amendment, I think is a statement that is unfair on the committee, unfair on you, sir, and unfair on members of the government who are being told to vote on a clause and an amendment that the Attorney has introduced on the basis of advice from a statutory officer that no-one has seen.

It might be right. I assume that there is a piece of advice, a memorandum, something that the Attorney can quote just to reassure the committee so we can just get on with it. It is the good order of the house. If a government asserts that a statutory officer has said, 'I want this,' it usually is communicated by email or correspondence. That is how it is done. An example is the ICAC commissioner: when the ICAC commissioner wants amendments to his bill, he or she generally writes to the parliament or the Attorney-General asking for the amendments.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: That is what he has done.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Could you please read part of the letter?

The CHAIR: Both sides are providing opinions here. The opposition is of the view that this document should be tabled; the Attorney has provided a view on how that best be made available is my understanding. There are two differing views on how that might be done and that is okay. We are not going to resolve it here tonight. My preference is to get on with the procedure of the committee. We are on clause 21. The member for West Torrens has had one question, the member for Lee has had two and the member for Florey has had two questions. Are there any further questions on clause 21?

Ms BEDFORD: It gets back to the Attorney's point about what we should or should not have done at briefings. I have been a bit concerned the normal practice of the house is being trashed at the moment. In the past, if we had questions—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Ms BEDFORD: No.

The CHAIR: I am interested to hear where this is going, member for Florey.

Ms BEDFORD: In the past, if members have had questions, they have usually been facilitated and helped through whatever their questions were. At the briefing we had as a crossbench, we did express reservations. At no point were we told we could call in the commissioner. If I had thought that would have been the case, we would have called him in at that time. Did we need to tell you we needed to call him in?

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: No.

Ms BEDFORD: We could have just called him in?

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: You could have asked him, approached him.

The CHAIR: Member for Florey, your question is about the availability to you of the commissioner.

Ms BEDFORD: It is about the availability of this information, which is crucial to me, but obviously if it is going to be looked at between the houses, well, that is fine. It is actually important we understand how this change, which I think is quite critical, has been brought about without knowing the reasoning behind the gentleman who has made this decision on behalf of the whole state. If it is going to be sorted between the houses, that is fine, but it is okay to ask a question about it—

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: What is the question?

Ms BEDFORD: —which is how did he come to that decision and what is the decision.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I repeat what I said before: this was raised by ECSA, that is, the Electoral Commissioner:

As it is not appropriate to ask silent electors their place of residence, the identity of a person can be established by the existing provisions which provide that the authorised officer can put further questions as are necessary to establish whether the person is entitled to vote.

I have checked with the adviser. I understand there were general questions in relation to this matter. There had not been any challenge to the identification or proof of whether this had come from ECSA or not. But if there is any concern on behalf of the member as to the veracity of this, certainly for the reasons I have indicated, we will go through and find any correspondence back and forth from the Electoral Commissioner because obviously he has had a vested interest in this.

Largely we have gone through the report, as I will repeat again, identified what is to be accommodated, picked them up and brought them in. In fact, we even went through the last commissioner's report from the last election to progress that because the previous commissioner had different recommendations which the previous government had completely ignored, and some which we thought were meritorious. We have picked them up and presented them. These reports have been tabled for over a year in the parliament and four years in the first instance.

In the to and fro of that, the Electoral Commissioner has put other matters—which I would say are relatively minor—but if they are now being brought to the attention of the member as having any concern, the process is outlined. I will ask the Electoral Commissioner if there is anything in the correspondence he sent to us as a statutory officer that he wants to be kept confidential, we will respect that; otherwise, we will make that available to members.

If members would like to have a meeting with the Electoral Commissioner, I am happy to help facilitate it. They are entitled to seek that directly with him if they wish but our office is happy to help them. I do not think I can do any more in relation to the process and usual practice of assisting members to appreciate what are, in this instance, a number of requests by the Electoral Commissioner, complemented by two areas of reform that we have been completely open about, and they are OPV and corflute regulation as being an initiative directly of the government.

Clause passed.

Clause 22.

Ms BEDFORD: This clause allows, among other things, for voters to apply for postal votes online or by telephone. Can I ask the Attorney what protections have been put in place to ensure that third parties cannot apply for postal votes on behalf of a vulnerable person without their consent or knowledge?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Firstly, let me confirm that this recommendation is from the Electoral Commissioner. For members following this, they can have a look at page 51 of the election report which specifically sets out the purpose of the amendment and the reasons for it. On the specific question about the risk of vulnerable people being exploited, I suppose for the purposes of electronic applications, the Electoral Commission said in the election report that, subject to legislative changes being made, it intends to allow applications for postal votes by telephone and online.

ECSA will replace the current requirement for signature with a robust verification process. The regulations prescribing the alternate methods of applying for postal votes have not yet been drafted. It will be possible to create offence provisions in the regulations. Section 139 of the act provides that regulations may prescribe fines not exceeding $5,000 for offences against the regulations by prescribing the process of applying for voting papers. In the regulations the processes can be updated as the technology evolves.

I also point out that there is—not as vulnerable persons—potential electoral cybersecurity. The 2018 COAG agreed to the establishment of a working group to strengthen the security of Australian electoral systems. The Electoral Commissioner and the South Australian government Chief Information Security Officer are members of the working group. The working group is currently considering a national electoral platform to mitigate cybersecurity risks.

Arrangements have been made by ECSA to work collaboratively with commonwealth and state agencies to mitigate potential cybersecurity risks in preparation for the 2022 South Australian state election. All of ECSA's systems and data sit within the SA government secure facilities and ECSA has specialist testing undertaken as part of the cybersecurity assurance sign-off. That is all the information I have in relation to providing that security.

Clause passed.

Clause 23 passed.

Clause 24.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I would like to inform the house that the opposition and the Labor Party will oppose this clause. This is a rather extraordinary attempt by the government and the Liberal Party of this state to amend the Electoral Act in such a way that is consistent with only one thing, and that is their self-interest. That is a distinctly different pursuit in terms of the amendment of this act than trying to do something that has at its heart a motive to improve the democracy of this state.

All of us in this place, hopefully, subscribe to some essential principles when it comes to the importance of democracy. We are all by nature, I believe, democrats, who accept that the ultimate arbiters of our conduct and the actions of each of us in this place should be the people, which I think means that we subscribe to an ideal in this country where we believe that every last person's vote should count. Every last vote should count. That is why Australia's democracy is unique in the world.

We live in a society that subscribes to an egalitarian ideal that everyone is equal, that everyone should vote and that every vote should count. That is why as a nation we have adopted a policy of compulsory voting. I contend that that is a policy that has stood this country and this state in extraordinarily good stead on any objective measure on a global comparison. The nature of our democracy and compulsory voting, and every last vote counting, is at the heart of our success. The experience of 2020, in regard to our dealing with the COVID challenge, is a demonstration of this.

Our democracy is probably one of the most intact of any modern western democracy around the world. It is easy to draw comparisons, whether it be in Continental Europe, the United Kingdom, or the United States of America. At the moment, their democracies are in peril. There are a number of contributing factors, and some of them differ between those examples, but at the heart of them is a democracy waning on the back of the politics of division, often motivated by the fact that not every last vote is being cast and not every last vote is being counted.

Notwithstanding our disagreements, notwithstanding the significant points of difference philosophically and ideologically that exist between people within this place and our major political parties and minor political parties and Independents—notwithstanding those differences—ultimately we do have a liberal democracy that gravitates towards the centre of politics, where every last Australian's voice is heard.

We have countervailing forces against the major parties within our political system in this country, best represented by Independents in this very chamber. What this clause does is seek to dramatically undermine those principles we have currently. Allow me a moment to explain how. Under our current voting method, every single vote counts—every single last vote in single-member electorates in the lower house of this place counts. If you cast a vote formally, it is going to inform the outcome—plain and simple. Under this clause, that is no longer the case.

Literally thousands of people in every single electorate across the state will have their votes extinguished and no longer determine the outcome of who was elected in this place. Those opposite might say, 'Well, fantastic, that suits our own electoral purposes,' and you are entitled to that position. A more thoughtful view would be: what is the ultimate consequence of that in the long term? I will tell you what that is, and that is we are going to see a greater degree of divided politics going to the extremes in this country in the exact way we do not want to see happen when we look overseas at the experience now.

Why would the Liberal Party of South Australia want to be party to that? There is almost nowhere else around the country where this occurs. You are the only government that is pursuing such an agenda, and I think it erodes the integrity of what this bill is supposed to, or purports to, seek to achieve, which is actually maximising the opportunity for people to vote, minimising the degree of informality and ensuring that every last vote and voice is heard.

I think it is an appalling approach on behalf of the government. I desperately invite everyone within this place, when you cast your vote on this question, to ask yourself this: are you willing to accept the extraordinary responsibility that has been invested in you as a custodian of this state's democracy to make a decision that is about the long-term interest of quality public policy in our state or not?

If you decide to support this clause, I argue very strongly that you are actually making or casting a ballot on the basis of self-interest that is more consistent with an immediate political outcome at the expense of our liberal democracy and the principles that have underpinned it in Australia. So I would invite you to reconsider, if you have not yet determined how you will cast your vote.

I argue that our record as a state, our record as a democracy, here in South Australia and across the rest of our federation speaks for itself. We have one of the highest standards of living in the world. We have dealt with extraordinary challenges in this year alone, when other countries have not, and the nature of our democracy and the nature of the fact that people trust it speaks volumes to that, and I invite the house to consider this clause accordingly.

The committee divided on the clause:

Ayes 20

Noes 20

Majority 0

The CHAIR: There being 20 ayes and 20 noes, as the Chairman I have the casting vote and I vote with the ayes.

Clause thus passed.

Mr PICTON: Point of clarification: is it not the convention in the case of a tied vote that the status quo should remain?

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, I have indicated where my vote is to be placed and I am going to leave it at that.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Point of order, Mr Chair: may I, with your indulgence, seek some clarity as to what may have informed that judgement in the context of the status quo convention?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order: I would argue that that is a reflection on a vote that has taken place in this house and is utterly out of order.

The CHAIR: I am not going to provide any more comment on this. We have had a division. It was tied. I cast my vote. We will move on.

Clauses 25 to 29 passed.

Clause 30.

Mr PICTON: I believe there is an amendment filed; is that correct?

The CHAIR: The amendment is to oppose the clause, I think, member for Kaurna, so all I am going to do is put the clause.

Mr PICTON: We usually we allow members to speak on clauses as they come up.

The CHAIR: Yes, you are allowed to speak.

Mr PICTON: I understand this clause is in relation to the repeal of section 93, which includes the interpretation of ballot papers in the House of Assembly elections and which presumably has been done as part of the government's desire to bring in optional preferential voting. Therefore, the opposition is supportive of the stated proposal from the member for Florey to oppose this section as well.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Can I ask that clause 30 be put.

Clause passed.

Clause 31.

Mr PICTON: Likewise, from my understanding this is in relation to informal ballot papers. This is also connected to the government's desire for OPV and, I believe, connected to their desire to remove ticket voting as well. Therefore, we support the stated intention of the member for Florey to oppose this clause as well.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Chair, I ask that clause 31 be put.

Clause passed.

Clause 32.

The CHAIR: Do you have a question, member for Kaurna?

Mr PICTON: Thank you for the opportunity. Things are getting a lot quicker, not being able to make contributions.

The CHAIR: No, member for Kaurna, you are able to make a contribution at any time.

Mr PICTON: Thank you; I appreciate that.

The CHAIR: The amendments to clauses 30, 31, 32 and 33 are merely to oppose the clause. That does not preclude the right to make a contribution.

Mr PICTON: I am glad that, as a member of parliament, I do have the right to make a contribution.

The CHAIR: Yes—and there is no need for sarcasm.

Mr PICTON: I was not being sarcastic.

The CHAIR: It sounded to me like you were.

Mr PICTON: This section is particularly relevant to option preferential voting as well. In relation to the government's drive to introduce optional preferential voting, I would like to ask the Attorney if she can nominate any non-incumbent Independent in the past 30 years who would have been elected to this parliament had optional preferential voting been in place during that time? Can she point to any non-incumbent Independent who would have been elected, outline which election that was and the rationale for how they would still have been elected?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Unsurprisingly, I do not have that immediately to calculate those reassessments. There has been some academic work on this in the past. I just remind members that this is optional preferential voting. It means that the voter at all times continues to have the right to do a full preferential vote if they wish to. It also means they have the choice to just vote for the one, two or three, less than the full complement, and have a validly cast vote. It may be that that is their choice. That is what we are proposing.

It is commonly asked of optional preferential voting if it means that, in fact, you could have a candidate who is successful with only 40 per cent of the vote. Absolutely, you can. That is why there has always been an argument for full preferential voting; that is, the most preferred candidate ultimately gets elected. Of course, with the aggregate of other parties' first preferences, they may do that, though. They may start with a lot less than 50 per cent but, with the aggregate of other smaller party candidates and Independents, are able to come up over the 50 per cent and be successful.

Once two candidates remain under an OPV system, the candidate with the most votes will be elected even if neither candidate then has an absolute majority. That is the proposal and that is what is being presented here. There has been some academic research in relation to optional preferential voting and whether there would be forecast throws of vote as a result of introduction of OPV, but I do not have that to hand.

Mr PICTON: I think it is worth noting at this time that, upon being asked to nominate any non-incumbent Independent in the past 30 years who would have been elected under this system, the Attorney-General was unable to nominate any particular non-incumbent Independent who would have—

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order: just to correct the record, the answer from the Attorney-General was that she does not have that information with her at the moment.

Mr Picton: What is the point of order?

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, there is a point of order.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: She does not have that information.

The CHAIR: What is the point of order, minister?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: That the member is debating the topic rather than actually contributing to the committee stage of this bill. The Attorney's answer was that she does not have the information at hand.

The CHAIR: Thank you for that, minister. Member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: Thank you; we always appreciate the coach's contributions. Let's be very clear: in my second reading speech, I went through the detail of each Independent who has been elected to this chamber in the past 30 years. In each of those cases, going right back, those Independents have only been elected when they have overcome a significant differential in the primary vote. That has been under our system and applies equally to all parties.

What the Attorney-General is proposing is going to make it near impossible for a non-incumbent Independent to ever be elected again into this parliament. Upon being asked to nominate any example in the past 30 years where she thinks that might still have been able to happen, she was not able to nominate one, and the reason is because none of them would have been elected. This is going to make it near impossible for a minor party or non-incumbent Independent to ever get elected into this parliament again. I think that weakens our democracy. It is all to benefit the Liberal Party and it is a blight that the Attorney-General continues to bring this proposal to the house.

Clause passed.

Clause 33.

Ms BEDFORD: This is the clause we have all been waiting for. The Attorney is laughing, so that is a good sign. You are not laughing? You are sort of smiling. This clause proposes to ban electoral advertising posters, or what are commonly referred to as corflutes.

I have already outlined why I think this would be a retrograde step without compensating measures to ensure challenges to incumbent members, Independents and minor parties are not disadvantaged. I foreshadow I will be moving an amendment to negate this clause and the related consequential clauses.

Before we move to that, I ask what consultation did the Attorney-General undertake on this matter? Did she seek the advice of the Electoral Commission of South Australia, and, if so, what was that advice? I acknowledge I did write this question before we had been granted access to the commissioner.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I answered that at clause 1.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Attorney, an 'electoral advertising poster' means a poster displaying electoral advertising material made of corflute or plastic or other material, or kind of material, prescribed by the regulations. We are taking that as corflutes that are basically on poles, etc. Does this include or exclude banners that could be put on a fence which is one square metre? Also, does it let somebody who has a tree just off of the road in their private property allow a corflute to be put on that tree on their private property?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There is no provision at all for exclusion on private property. This is all in relation to public property. Where it reads 'public road means a road within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1961', the prohibition relates to that. The proposal states:

A person must not, during an election period, exhibit an electoral advertising poster—

as defined—you have already referred to that—

on a public road (including any structure, fixture or vegetation on a public road), except in circumstances prescribed by the regulations.

The provision here as expressed in this regulation as to the banning of corflutes relates to public property. In the explanation you gave, a poster on someone's private fence or on a tree within a private property is not covered by this.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: So I can put—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: You can have private advertising with anyone who wants to let you put your advertising on.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: You can put it on the fence of a golf course, for argument's sake, or something like that?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: If you have the permission of the owner, yes. I would get that first, but I think you would be alright at the Port Pirie Golf Club.

The CHAIR: The member for Kaurna has a question on corflutes.

Mr PICTON: I do, on clause 33, Chair. We know, of course, that this is one of the clauses that the Attorney herself has come up with; this has not come from the Electoral Commissioner's recommendations. When she was coming up with this clause, did she consider any alternatives such as capping the number of corflutes, requiring that the corflutes be made of recyclable materials, or increasing penalties for corflutes and posters that were erected inappropriately?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Can I just start afresh with this. We have had corflutes for about 30 years as a communication mechanism for elections. I am just old enough to remember before we had them, but the reality is they have been commonplace for elections over the last 30 years, perhaps 35 years in some areas. Some parts of South Australia have not actually taken them up at all and that has been a personal area usually within the district council.

It is our view, as I have identified, and the view of the government that there are environmental aspects to this in addition to the fact that there are so many other forms of communication now as to the information being disseminated to educate the public as to candidates' apparent attributes for the purposes of public office.

I suppose it would be arguable that those, particularly electronic, are by far the greatest source of information now for people interested in having information about who is proposing to represent them, what they stand for, whether they have any affiliation with political parties and the like. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I do not know. The reality is that is the position we are in. I think mainstream media still has a significant role.

Corflutes are seen as a blight on the environment. There is the production and disposal of them, given that they are a product which is lightweight and rigid but not easily compostable—in terms of understanding the environmental consideration here. Obviously, they are used—this corrugated polypropylene type product, which is a fluted plastic—because they withstand the weather for a month, usually sitting on someone's Stobie pole, and are designed to survive the display during the relevant period. But they are, as I say, a form of advertising that we suggest is outdated.

On their website, the Australian Greens have looked at this question of limited recycling, but, as is pointed out, this polypropylene is not widely recycled, with only two main recycling methods: either mechanical recycling, which is complicated due to concerns both around food content and around separating types of plastic, or recycling through chemical methods to break the corflute down. So while all their political parties encourage their candidates to re-use or recycle corflutes or repurpose or donate them, this is often difficult and sees a continual cycle of new corflutes being printed each election.

Beyond the corflute itself, in order to suspend the advertising they require cable ties and other fixings, which often get cut and left for local wildlife to consume. Local councils have further raised concerns about diminished roadside safety, distracting drivers and the preservation of roadside public amenity. Corflutes are costly to parties and do little to educate the voters about the candidate or their platform beyond their name.

Importantly, our government appreciates that people may need to be reminded on election day and of polling place locations, so the bill provides that exceptions to this ban are permitted by regulation. As I have indicated in the second reading, it may potentially be utilised to allow unlimited numbers of corflutes to be displayed adjacent to polling booths on election day or during the polling period and potentially near polling places within the current advertising and electoral display guidelines in the act. They are matters yet to be discussed and considered.

There are two impressive matters which have come to our attention. One is the surveying—and I have outlined this in the second reading—that has occurred in relation to this matter. Early in the discussion on consideration of this proposal, in the survey that was undertaken in relation to the banning of corflutes, of the 1,879 people polled 90 per cent of people voted that, yes, political posters or corflutes should be banned.

Surveys are a demonstration, an indication at the time, but this was a very significant percentage—90 per cent say they should be banned. I think the understanding of the general public—and obviously you can listen to talkback radio, you can take your own surveys, your own electorates; these are matters which members can make their own judgement on, but we have found very significant push for it.

The second factor that really impressed me is that as soon as there had been an opening of public discussion on this we immediately had the LGA writing to us to say, 'Look, if you are going to be doing this, can you do it for us too? Can you do it for our members, because we want to be relieved of these matters as well.' It is not just the regulation by councils themselves but for their own elections. Indeed, as members would be aware if they are following the debate that we had yesterday on local government, that has therefore been included in their electoral reforms that they have sought, because they are very keen to be relieved of this.

If any members listen to the commentary on this, firstly, young people do not understand what the benefit of them is at all, I do not think. Secondly, if one listens to talkback radio, it is a question—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: If one listens to talkback radio—most of them live in my electorate, which are the older ones—then they, of course, are very clear: get rid of them. They have had their day. We have lived before and after them—BC and AC, as they say—and they will be—

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: And not going anywhere.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Before corflutes and after corflutes, exactly. We say they really serve no purpose. Members can consider that for themselves, but we have considered those matters. We have obviously listened to those in commentary. There are political commentators, as we know, the Dean Jaensches of the world and so on, who say, 'Get rid of them.' In fact, he says to get rid of a lot of things, but get rid of corflutes at least while you are there.

People who have been around politics a long time understand that they have had their day. They are a product that the Australian Greens identify as being something that we would all like to recycle, but it is very difficult to. You could put up cardboard ones, but they might not last the first week.

Ms Bedford: They won't last the first day.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: If it is raining, of course, we will see lots of pictures with dribbly, runny streaks through them because they will be unrecognisable. That is the situation we are in. We think that there is a case for consideration of limited presentation by candidates at the polling booth during the polling period, that is, the day or the pre-poll, and we are happy to talk further about that if this legislation is passed to ensure that everyone has some view as to what the process should be and whether there should be a limitation of message or size or anything else in relation to polling day.

Really, I think the message is fairly clear. There are good environmental reasons to get rid of this. They are a blight, they are ugly in the sense of their visibility, dangerous to traffic, all the things I have outlined in the second reading. I will not go through them again. There is a cost, obviously, in the resource of policing these things as well. We are looking forward to a corflute-free election lead-up in 2022, if it is the will of the house and this parliament to support this initiative.

Mr PICTON: I think it is pretty incredible that we are debating a bill about the electoral process and the Attorney is using as her example a click unscientific poll and talkback radio as her supporting examples.

Ms Stinson: All those millennials.

Mr PICTON: Very scientific. That's right; as the member for Badcoe says, all those millennials. We also heard from the Attorney-General a discussion about something else I am very keen to ask about in this very problematic section, which is in relation to the regulation-making powers. It is very interesting that the government is seeking to ban corflutes, except they are giving themselves—the government—the ability to make a regulation to allow them in some situations. We do not know what those situations are.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: If you are running for Bragg.

Mr PICTON: That's right; maybe if you are running for Bragg. The Bragg campaign is probably a well-oiled machine. I think the danger in this is that here we have a situation where the government is saying, 'We will determine the rules at a time of our own choosing. We are not going to tell you what those rules are going to be.' We have already heard, during the course of this debate, the extensive discussion that the Attorney-General has had with Ms Sascha Meldrum, who is the director of the Liberal Party, in relation to this legislation.

Presumably, the Liberal Party and the government are going to discuss what the circumstances should be in relation to this regulation-making power, and therefore they are going to have a heads-up as to whatever the case may be and will be prepared for whatever those regulations are that will allow corflutes in some scenarios. Of course, all of those environmental factors go out the window when we are now allowing them in a set of scenarios that the government itself is going to determine. If this is dropped late in the piece, there will be no ability for the parliament to come back and consider whether to disallow those regulations.

This is a significant advantage that the Liberal Party is cooking into this legislation for themselves. They will be able to write the rules ahead of time. If they believe that there is some scenario in which they should be allowed to, then put it in the legislation, make everybody aware of what those rules are now and do not give yourself the chance to write the rules five minutes before midnight to the election.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I have indicated, if the abolition or banning of corflutes is successful in this form, we have left open the opportunity to consider whether, by regulation, there would be some provision to have them on election day. I have heard before the suggestion about the importance of minor parties or Independents having an opportunity to present their corflutes.

I think there is some argument for the opportunity to do that on election day, to put it in their A-frame with an indication of how they are wanting people to vote. It may not be unreasonable. Personally, I would be happy for them to go altogether, but at this stage we have left open the opportunity to consider a support for having a display on election day or at the pre-polls—to have that available to them.

So we would ask particularly the minor parties, or those who say it is necessary for democracy to be able to have a form of display, to consider two things: one is supporting the ban of corflutes on public property, Stobie poles, etc., during the lead-up to the election, and the other is providing us with their recommendations as to what they think should be reasonable for the display in that polling period. We are quite open to discuss that. We would not be presumptive to say that this is what we think should happen on election days about how many each candidate should have or what space they should have or things of that nature. We would be quite happy to hear from all parties.

Again, as I understand this argument of the Independents and the minor parties, some of them are saying, 'Look, this really is our only form of expression or display or face recognition.' That may be well put. The fact is, we are leaving open that opportunity for us to look at a regulated process for polling day. If it turns out that there is no appetite for that; that is, no-one wants to have any displays on election day; we want to get rid of these things altogether—

The Hon. G.G. Brock: What about the pre-poll period?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, election day or the pre-poll period—this is what I am considering.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: One thing those who were following the law reform in the local council yesterday are looking for is access to use them during their polling period, I think they call it under their act—I would have to check the wording of it. They have a voting period. You do not have a day that you vote for local council. I think it is 14 days. Anyway, it is a number of days. They are looking to have use of them at the polling booths for their polling.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: They do not have to. I understand that. I am just saying to you—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order from the opposition bench!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In any event, these are the things we are looking at for them to say if they want to be able to do that themselves as well. We have said that obviously we are happy to have a look at that. You have asked to follow what we are doing, and I have asked them, 'Is there any particular aspect that you want?' 'No, we will do what you are doing and keep it simple.' We will not have them on posters and Stobie poles and leave it open for some discussion about what they would like as their polling options.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, members shout out that it is largely postal in the sense of being able to vote over a period of time. They may come up with some other alternative way of how they might want to have some display. Of course, local councils quite sensibly provide, a bit like the South Australian Cricket Association, a summary of a certain number of words about the profile and what they are offering ratepayers as their attributes to be a successful candidate. I think it has to be over 150 words or something like that; there is a limit. It is displayed online and can be distributed at various outlets. It is a useful means of information consolidated in a uniform way.

It is not quite the same with state election candidates, or federal candidates for that matter. Nevertheless, there is quite a significant amount of information about the policies of political parties that they stand for and the like. I just make the point that this is not presented as a model where the government will identify what they want. It will be—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am just indicating. If they want to, they can have an opportunity to have a say about whether there should be some preservation of the right to display, essentially, at the critical time of voting, and we are open to that. We have made provision there for it. I would expect that members of political parties will go and consult with their advisers in their own political parties as to whether they think that is a sensible idea and, if so, what the format should be in regard to size, colours, message or pictures only, those types of things.

Apart from being in the one-metre rule in the South Australian Electoral Act, I am happy to hear any indications about what members would prefer. I have written to every member in the parliament and I have written to every political party that is registered in South Australia. The invitation remains open. I have not had any Labor members write to me to say, 'We think this is a good idea.' Apparently, they just want to oppose everything in this bill. In any event, I hope that members will seriously consider that and leave that gate open for them to present some proposal on what they think would be reasonable.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It is curious, is it not, that several years ago when a former Attorney-General, the former member for Croydon, sought to get rid of these we certainly had a different perspective from the member for Bragg at that time than we now have. You might ask why that is and the answer to that question, quite simply, is: incumbency. Like so many other measures that this bill seeks to achieve, this seeks to enshrine the Deputy Premier's and her political party's incumbency.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As the Deputy Premier just reminded us, if she has something to say I am sure she will have an opportunity shortly, won't she, rather than having to interject. That is what is motivating this here.

Clearly, as a political candidate, particularly of a major party, I have certainly used corflutes. I cannot think of one person in this chamber now who has not used corflutes for the benefit of their election. They are most useful particularly the first time that a candidate runs for parliament to demonstrate to the electorate who they are, who the person is. It is not just of benefit, of course, for somebody running for the first time; it also assists—given we have four-year fixed terms here in South Australia—in reminding the electorate who people are the next time they come to vote. In fact, some members past and present have the practice of using the same corflute over and over again, election to election.

Maybe I am wrong on that because, of course, we all put on our best face for our corflute photo. We all seem to look five or 10 years younger in our corflute photos. Some of us, of course, take the alternative approach: the Benjamin Buttons of corflute photos. Nonetheless, they have been a great utility.

I had an interesting experience with corflutes at the last election. I had more than 400 corflutes stolen off Stobie poles in the course of the last five weeks of the election campaign. Unbelievably, those corflutes are yet to surface. It is not easy to store 400 corflutes. You would usually need to be someone who has access to some sort of political organisation and its infrastructure, somewhere to store that many stolen corflutes.

Anyway, I hope the campaign manager for Steven Rypp is looking after those corflutes, and I hope they do not get re-erected if the member for Bragg's amendment to the Electoral Act passes here and I suffer a $5,000 fine for each of those 400 corflutes that may be surreptitiously put up to try to spite me and spite my campaign in the same way that they were stolen.

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: This is a very serious conspiracy theory.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The member for Stuart is agitated. He might have something misleading to provide the house again, as is his wont. Speaking of misleading, it is not just the member for Stuart; it is also the content that those opposite put on corflutes. Think of some of the corflutes that were put up at the last election.

Now that we have the member for Bragg, who is the Minister for Local Government, we are going to cap council rates. I remember that corflute. Do you remember that one? Well, apparently we are not. Apparently, instead of a corflute, we should have a white flag for the member for Bragg's electoral booth when it comes to capping council rates. What about lower costs? Well, the $500 million in higher taxes, fees and charges and the extra $725 a year that a nurse has to pay for hospital car parking at the Women's and Children's Hospital and The Queen Elizabeth Hospital do not sound like lower costs to me.

The CHAIR: Member for Lee, we are digressing. Back to corflutes.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, and what was superimposed on those corflutes at the last election. We also had the promise about more jobs, but of course jobs growth stalled under here. We also had the commitment of better services. Well, it is a bit hard to provide better services in your hospitals when you are sacking doctors and nurses, isn't it?

I wonder whether now it is not just about ensuring the Deputy Premier's incumbency and that of her colleagues. I wonder whether it is also about trying to hide the failures of this government and the promises they made to the people of South Australia on those corflutes. But we learn, as this debate goes on, that maybe all these fears are unfounded. Because of the Deputy Premier's regulatory power, she might find some ways to make regulations, we first heard, to benefit Independents.

Which Independents, you might ask? I guess that would be up to the Deputy Premier. Which would be of most use to the Deputy Premier and her political fortunes and those of her colleagues? Which Independents would get the benefit of that? This is a dreadful regime that the Deputy Premier is proposing here, one that she tries to singularly impose on the community of South Australia where she and she alone will be the arbiter of how corflutes are to be used.

An honourable member: And by whom.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: And by whom. I for one think that that is an outrage, and I think all of you, particularly those of you who are only here by the benefit of having used these before, should understand how they do level the playing field, particularly for new candidates, and how they do provide people who are not from major political parties the opportunity to become known within their electorates. If that is unacceptable to the Deputy Premier, that is an even more ringing endorsement.

Ms BEDFORD: The Attorney has mentioned in her contributions the booklet on style information that is circulated by councils. I would particularly like to know if they were considered in any way. I put it to the Attorney that some people do not even know there is an election until the corflutes go up. While we may all complain about them, that is the first time people even notice anything is actually happening. I would like to know whether the information booklet has been given any consideration or whether you might consider as part—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Do you mean for state elections?

Ms BEDFORD: Yes, that's right. Will you consider that the council-style booklet be adopted at the state election if you want to get rid of corfultes, per se, or whether you might consider one spot in the election or five spots in the election where everyone can stick a poster, so that everyone knows if they go past the wall at Tea Tree Plaza or the sporting club or the very big vacant block at Burnside—I do not know how long that is going to be there—whether there might be a spot like that?

I would also like to know whether you have given any thought to the ground stickers that we now see on footpaths. As far as I knew, these were legal, but at a federal polling booth in the last election the candidate went nuts—there is no other way to describe what happened—and we were forced to remove that ground poster. They are used everywhere else in the city, so you are not picking up ground posters and they would be the next thing I would be putting on the ground at my polling booths.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There has certainly been no attempt to impose a regime of how you should publish. Candidates and political parties have different ways to sell their message: obviously, television and radio advertising, followed by major social media content and then display within the restrictions that we have, the one-metre rule, etc. Federal people do not have that rule, and there are giant pictures of federal members next to us. There are many different ways people can present a summary. They can put it on their own profiles in relation to web pages, Facebook pages and so on.

This is not as a result of us undertaking an exercise about what we think people should do in relation to how they present their case. There is no intention by the government to be prescriptive in that regard, but we have listened to the concerns raised, particularly about the environmental aspect, given that we have other 21^st century mediums with which to convey information, and the clear utility of what corflutes are about.

They may be a prompt for people, who will say, 'Oh, there must be an election on. I can see all these faces. Is it a local council or is it the state election?' or whatever. That may be a prompt for some people. I would suggest that there are plenty of other means by which they are given that, but you may be right. Some people may be refreshed when they are putting up the antenna for civic matters. Otherwise, they only read the back page of The Advertiser and they only follow the sport.

Ms Bedford: And they don't care about it.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am not discounting that. I just make the point that what we have done here is not an exercise in setting out a prescription about how people sell their message, but we have identified that there is a community expectation that we have a look at this, and we have. We have had discussions about it and it is the government's view, supported by the Liberal party room, that this initiative would save money and resources and remove a fairly inefficient means of communication in the 21^st century.

It would also remove the blight visibly and would certainly remove a significant environmental problem of posters everywhere during the election period and also their disposal afterwards, and the road safety initiatives that I have mentioned. I have shortened the list in relation to those, but you understand the indication. I hear what the member says about it being a prompt. Whether we need a thousand prompts in every electorate on Stobie poles—that may be excessive. In any event, I think there is time for us in 2020 to say, 'Let's move on.'

Ms BEDFORD: My next question is: why has the Attorney-General concentrated on corflutes and not considered a comprehensive package of fairness measures, particularly, as the member for Kaurna mentioned earlier, such as those applying in Tasmania, where there are no corflutes but there is also a ban on handing out how-to-vote cards and a rotating ballot order to avoid the impact of so-called donkey vote, and other measures?

Are we actually trying to address as a whole package in a fair way or are we just cherrypicking through the bits that some people might not like?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, I think we have certainly considered at length the question of whether optional preferential voting is introduced, and that is a voting system, just like the Labor Party did to present to the parliament before the last election, in considerable consultation with us as the then opposition.

Mr Malinauskas: For the other house.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: For the Legislative Council. At that stage it was not a question of saying, 'We've considered 15 different ways of voting and this is what we have come up with.' We had a discussion about that to the extent of making a contribution—

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, well, you came late in the piece, but nevertheless—

Mr Malinauskas: I'm here now, though. We didn't get any dialogue whatsoever.

The CHAIR: Order, leader! I've already called you to order a couple of times.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: At the time we had constructive discussions without the now Leader of the Opposition but with the leadership of the time to consider the proposal of the then government as to—

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have this noise coming from over here. I am trying to address the member for Florey's issue. So, yes, we have not gone through and said, 'We are going to again be prescriptive about what should occur as to the information available.' Certainly when we looked at the abolition of corflutes, which was in general community discussion—we had just come through an election campaign. There were rumblings then, there was discussion in the public arena about this and we listened to it.

We considered the constitutional validity of whether that could occur. We observed that it occurs in two other states where they have been banned in two other states in Australia, and had not been challenged in relation to validity. So those sorts of elements obviously we considered. The world has not fallen down either here in the Legislative Council when we changed the vote or in Tasmania when they got rid of corflutes.

There are ways to manage that. I am interested to hear, and that is why I wrote to every member of this parliament as to whether they have any views as to the reforms that were being presented. As I say, I have not had anything. Indirectly, I have had them via political commentators—Professor Dean Jaensch, people like that—who say, 'Why don't you get rid of these other things as well like how-to-vote cards?' We have had an indication, as I say, that there are a number of reasons to support the abolition of corflutes.

There may be a case to put for changes in relation to other communication practices. At first blush, I am not someone who would jump to being prescriptive about how people sell their message but this is one which appears to have now reached a level where the public are saying, 'Look, this is neither effective communication for us, nor is it something that we value. In fact, we are concerned about aspects such as the environment.'

Certainly the Australian Greens have raised these matters. I would hope the Australian Labor Party would look afresh at this, recognise that there are other now calls like the local government sector seeking relief from having to deal with these and regulate them. If it is the view of the Australian Labor Party that they are now going to insist that we keep them, and that maybe so, I might have to ring up the Hon. Michael Atkinson and see if he would like to come and advocate for them because he certainly presented an argument before in the parliament.

Ms Bedford: He also changed the seat of Spence to Cheltenham. What do you think about that?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, I know—to Croydon at the time, which was I think reprehensible. Catherine Helen Spence's memory was obliterated with the pen of the Hon. Michael Atkinson but, anyway—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: A submission was presented to argue, and he insisted that Croydon be recognised and Spence be removed and he was successful.

Mr PICTON: Mr Chairman, point of order: we may have just deferred from the topic at hand.

The CHAIR: I might ask the Attorney to conclude her response.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, we have not specifically gone into other areas of reform, but I am happy to hear from the member if she has any other ideas. The sky has not fallen in in Tasmania—Launceston, Hobart, they seem to happily have elections without pictures all over the stobie poles.

The CHAIR: Just as an aside, I found in my shed only this past week a corflute of a very young Rob Kerin. I have no idea why or how I came to have it. It is so old it is in black and white, so there you go.

The committee divided on the clause:

Ayes 22

Noes 18

Majority 4

Clauses 34 and 35 passed.

New clause 35A.

Ms BEDFORD: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Bedford–2]—

Page 10, after line 38—Insert:

35A—Amendment of section 130Q—Payment not to be made or to be reduced in certain circumstances

Section 130Q—after subsection (2) insert:

(2a) A payment under this Division will not be made—

(a) in respect of votes given for a candidate in a general election who is endorsed by a registered political party that endorses—

(i) 5 or more candidates for election in the general election; or

(ii) 5 or more candidates for election in a simultaneous Legislative Council election,

(or both) unless—

(iii) at least 35 per cent of any candidates endorsed by the registered political party for election in the general election are women; and

(iv) at least 35 per cent of any candidates endorsed by the registered political party for election in the Legislative Council election are women; or

(b) in respect of votes given for a candidate in a Legislative Council election held at the same time as a general election who is endorsed by a registered political party that endorses—

(i) 5 or more candidates at the Legislative Council election; or

(ii) 5 or more candidates at the general election,

(or both) unless—

(iii) at least 35 per cent of any candidates endorsed by the registered political party in the Legislative Council election are women; and

(iv) at least 35 per cent of any candidates endorsed by the registered political party for election in the general election are women.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Member for Florey, my understanding of this amendment is that it seeks to restrict public funding payable to political parties if they do not achieve a 35 per cent quota of women candidates. Is my understanding of how this reads correct?

Ms BEDFORD: I have to admit I have not seen it, so I do not know where it came from. My understanding was that my clause 14 was dealt with earlier and I was not aware of this bit being filed. It was an earlier thought bubble that has come down here all of a sudden.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: If it is not the intention of the member to continue it, I will not ask any other questions. But if you do find that it is something meritorious that you want to progress, could you indicate to me whether I am right in suggesting that it appears to restrict public funding payable to political parties if they do not achieve a 35 per cent quota of women?

Ms BEDFORD: It certainly does restrict public funding, doesn't it?

The CHAIR: Member for Florey, what would you like to do with this?

Ms BEDFORD: I do not need to go ahead with it.

The CHAIR: In that case, member for Florey, you have already moved it, so might I suggest that you seek leave of the committee to withdraw.

Ms BEDFORD: I am sure the committee would be very pleased if I did that, sir. I seek leave to withdraw it.

Leave granted; amendment withdrawn.

Clause 36 passed.

New clause 36A.

Ms BEDFORD: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Bedford–2]—

Page 11, after line 2—Insert:

36A—Review

(1) The Electoral Commissioner must include in the relevant State election report a review of the operation of section 53(8a) and section 130Q(2a) of the Electoral Act 1985 (as inserted into that Act by section 14(11) and section 35A of this Act (respectively)).

(2) In this section—

relevant State election report means the report of the Electoral Commissioner relating to the general election immediately following the commencement of section 35A of this Act.

Mr PICTON: I indicate the support of the opposition for this amendment.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: My understanding is that this is a review seeking the Electoral Commissioner to review the matters that would have been relevant if you had progressed the amendment before; that is, if you had restrictions on the payment and funding available without quotas, etc., then you would be seeking a review on those matters, but you have not actually progressed that. The other matter in relation to quotas was not successful.

Ms BEDFORD: Well, then, it is consequential, which is what I thought was the case in the first place.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy to indicate that, if the member the Florey sought leave to withdraw it, we would support the withdrawal. My understanding is that the member acknowledges that the review she has just sought to include was to seek a review, reporting by the Electoral Commissioner, of the two reforms that were proposed earlier, both of which have either been voted down or withdrawn. There is nothing to review.

The CHAIR: You are quite right, Attorney.

Ms BEDFORD: The Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission reviews our results after the next election, but we did make that an amendment.

The CHAIR: After all that, member for Florey, we have realised that it is consequential, so I would suggest you seek the leave of the house to withdraw it.

Ms BEDFORD: I do, sir.

Leave granted; amendment withdrawn.

Schedule 1.

The CHAIR: We are nearly there. We are at the schedule. Member for Florey, you have amendment No. 9, which is to strike out—

Ms BEDFORD: That is right.

The CHAIR: My suggestion is that you—

Ms BEDFORD: As I said at the very beginning—

The CHAIR: You would simply vote against this.

Ms BEDFORD: That is right.

The CHAIR: It is consequential on earlier amendments that have been negatived. That seems to be the theme for the night.

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The CHAIR: I missed that, leader.

Schedule passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (22:37): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I thank all members for their contribution, in particular the member for Florey. I say that because she has given careful consideration to some of the reforms in this legislation. On the question of corflutes, she has raised particularly the question of the street display which will be on public property, which probably would be covered by the proposal that is being advanced in this bill by being a poster within the definition, but we could certainly have a look at that.

I have seen some things that have been plastered on footpaths. I am more than happy to speak to the member for Florey about that. It is possible they are already covered, but if they are not I think there is some merit in having a look at that and I would be happy to have a look at it between the houses. I am disappointed, of course, that the opposition have taken the view that they should just wholesale reject the whole of this bill.

There has been a lot of work done by the Electoral Commissioner. He has a difficult job to deal with very many elections: state and local government, Indigenous groups and other boards. It is a very busy organisation. I think they do genuinely present to us in the parliament areas of reform that they find are either impractical in the operation of the legislation or which could be improved, and I think we should carefully consider those.

It is disappointing to see a wholesale rejection by the opposition of the entire bill. I would understand it for things that they see as novel or peculiar presented by the government. But to do that to the Electoral Commissioner, I think is disrespectful. Nevertheless, that is their position. I am pleased that the bill will now progress to the other place and we will see what their view is of the matter.

I thank the advisers throughout the matter—it has been quite complicated work—including our own Crown Solicitor's Office, which looked at the constitutional issues which I touched on during the committee discussions. We, on this side, will continue to look at electoral reforms we think are for the benefit of the people of South Australia. With that, I commend the bill at the third reading.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (22:40): I will tell you what is disrespectful to the Electoral Commissioner: the way this government have gone about drafting this legislation. There were proposals from the Electoral Commissioner, but they have been lumbered with party political positions, partisan positions from the government, to try to benefit their own election and to try to stop any non-incumbent Independents from ever getting elected again to this parliament.

We are in the middle of a global pandemic. We are in the middle of an economic crisis. Instead of debating that, we are debating a bill which is designed to help the Liberal Party stay in office. That is their priority. There is no doubt that this legislation is going to make it harder and harder for non-incumbent Independents and minor parties to ever get elected to this parliament. We have benefited over many decades from the contributions of people who have different perspectives from the major parties, and this is going to stop that from happening.

I asked the Attorney-General to nominate any seat where she thought a non-incumbent Independent might still have been elected, and she failed to nominate even one of those where that would occur. The fact is because they would not. This is a proposal to help entrench the Liberal Party and to help stop Independents from getting elected to parliament. It is setting the bar extremely high to do so, and all of this has come from the Liberal Party themselves.

None of this has been recommended in terms of optional preferential voting by the Electoral Commissioner. They have come up with it themselves. They are trying to steamroll it through this parliament to make sure that they are in a better position to get elected in the future. I think it is a very important point in terms of how the parliament works. We do have precedents and conventions in the way that votes are handled and conventions in the way that tied votes should be handled. We will support the fact that they should be handled in a way that keeps the status quo. That is very important for our democracy.

Here we have a bill where it is very important for our democracy that there will still be the ability for Independents and minor parties to get elected to parliament. In debating this, we believe it is very important that that democratic principle in terms of tied votes be maintained in terms of maintaining the status quo of the precedent of this parliament going back to our foundation. This is something that we will be pursuing, both in this house and in the other place, because what the Liberal Party is trying to do is benefit themselves, benefit their own electoral abilities and reduce the potential for other voices to get elected to this parliament which is a tremendous shame and it is an indictment upon their administration that they would do this.

Mr MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Leader of the Opposition) (22:43): I made remarks earlier this evening in regard to the OPV proposition and, if it were to succeed, why it would diminish our democracy and why it would undermine established principles that we have, not just in this state but as a country, in terms of valuing the concept of not just compulsory voting but the fact that every last vote that is cast counts. An additional element I neglected to mention in my earlier remarks was the question of formality.

One of the things that is currently provided for within our Electoral Act and our voting system is consistency across the federation. Of course, by achieving consistency, what we also do is maximise the chance of formality in terms of votes being cast. We have seen an increase in the degree of informality in recent elections. That is incredibly concerning because good people go to cast their ballot and when that vote is done informally, not deliberately, it means someone's voice is not being heard. I thought we all would have subscribed to the idea that that would be an unfortunate outcome.

There is a broad range of principles at stake in regard to this piece of legislation, not least of which is the concept that the tyranny of the majority should not be used to distort the electoral system in such a fundamental way so as to entrench that majority. We live in an incredibly diverse state, and that level of diversity is only increasing at an exponential rate; it might have been put slightly on hold with COVID, but the diversity within our state continues to grow. That means it is highly presumptuous of this parliament, indeed of this house, to form a judgement that we should be passing a law that diminishes the prospect of independent voices being heard. That would be an appalling judgement for this house to make, should it make it.

My final remark would be in regard to the Attorney's point. I would like to put on the record, on behalf of the Australian Labor Party in this state, our great thanks to the Electoral Commission for their fine work. We are very lucky in this state, and across the country, to have robustly independent electoral commissions, something that is not enjoyed everywhere around the world. I believe the Electoral Commission enjoys the confidence of everyone in this house; I cannot speak for them, but I can speak on behalf of the South Australia Labor Party, and we have complete confidence in the Electoral Commissioner and the Electoral Commission—but, as the member for Lee aptly remarked earlier, we do not enjoy that same degree of confidence in the Attorney-General.

I am somewhat disappointed that the Attorney sought to verbal the opposition, in her characteristic style, as somehow casting aspersions on the Electoral Commission by having a view around what is within the Electoral Act. Our concern here is that there are elements of this bill that may have advanced democracy, or there may even be elements of the bill—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

Mr MALINAUSKAS: We are opposing the bill, because what the government has decided to do is seek to fundamentally change the intent of the bill so that it is not about electoral reform and trying to enhance democracy or trying to increase turnout or accessibility of voting: at its core, what this bill seeks to do is provide an entrenched advantage to the Liberal Party for their own political electoral benefit at the expense of others.

I am not just talking about at the expense of the Australian Labor Party or Independents; I am talking about at the expense of those people who want nothing more than to have their voice heard at the ballot box. They are the people who will pay the price for this piece of legislation: South Australians who, if this bill was to successfully pass this parliament, will no longer have their vote count all the way through. That would be an incredibly unfortunate circumstance if it were to eventuate.

We will not allow that to happen easily. We will oppose this bill on a matter of principle because we will always be a political outfit that seeks to maximise the likelihood of every last voice being heard, every last vote being counted and every citizen getting the opportunity to cast their ballot accordingly.

The house divided on the third reading:

Ayes 20

Noes 20

Majority 0

The SPEAKER: There being 20 ayes and 20 noes, the division is equal. I have a casting vote and I cast my vote for the ayes. The division is resolved in the affirmative.

Third reading thus carried.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (22:54): I move:

That the house do now adjourn.

The SPEAKER: It has been moved. Is it seconded?

An honourable member: Yes, sir.

The SPEAKER: We are one step ahead. The Clerk.

Bill read a third time and passed.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order: there was a motion moved and it was seconded. I do not understand how you just stopped the proceedings halfway through.

The SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Hammond! Order, member for Chaffey! The Deputy Premier has the call.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I move:

That the house do now adjourn.

The SPEAKER: It has been moved. Is it seconded?

An honourable member: Yes, sir.

The SPEAKER: I will put the question at once.

Motion carried.

At 22:55 the house adjourned until Thursday 15 October 2020 at 11:00.