House of Assembly Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2) 54 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Electoral (Electronic Documents and Other Matters) Amendment Bill Electoral (Electronic Documents and Other Matters) Amendment Bill Electoral (Electronic Documents and Other Matters) Amendment Bill Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 26 May 2021.) Mr PICTON House of Assembly Kaurna Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (17:49): I rise to speak in relation to the Electoral (Electronic Documents and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2021. I indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition. This is a piece of legislation that, in many ways, is a carbon copy of what we previously brought to this parliament, moved by the Attorney, which was ultimately unsuccessful and defeated in the other place. There are a number of key differences, though, and they were the key things that, from what we understand, the Attorney-General personally was pushing to be included in the legislation. The first was in relation to a ban on corflutes, the posters that are notable during election periods, and the second was the introduction of optional preferential voting, which we have not had here in South Australia but some states at various times have had it and, of course, that was a significant concern. Both were of concern particularly to minor parties and Independents, and there were significant concerns in relation to making it more difficult for non-incumbents and minor parties to be elected, which obviously led to the lack of passage in the other place. I think the other key reason that this original proposal made by the Attorney to the parliament was not successful was that it was really trying to change the rules of the election right before the election. What we see here is essentially trying to do the same thing: this would be a significant change in the rules of the election campaign right before we start the election campaign early next year. Off the top of my head, I think we are now only some eight months away from when the writs would be issued for the election, and these would be very significant changes to the electoral process that would be proposed within this legislation. Many of these changes were proposed by the Electoral Commissioner in reports to the parliament, most of which were proposed I believe years ago now but it took a very long time for the Attorney to bring them in any form to the parliament and, when she did, she added on significant changes that were not recommended by the Electoral Commissioner in any of those reports or recommendations that the commissioner made. The rules of our electoral process are vitally important. We need to have a process that is fair, that is well understood, that is going to govern an election that can deliver an outcome that is democratic and delivers what the people of South Australia want and ensures that their voice has been heard and is echoed in who is elected to this parliament. We have had a very strong tradition in South Australia of strong electoral laws. We have had periods where that has not been the case as well, and you only have to look at the Playmander period—as he looks down upon us. Under the significant period of time that Sir Thomas Playford was Premier of this state, we had a period where there was malapportionment of votes across South Australia and there were some country residents who had, say, 10 times the weight of their vote to people who lived in the city of Adelaide. Clearly, that is unfair. We need a process that is going to be fair to all parties, not one that is going to seek to benefit any particular party whatsoever. Obviously, these laws have to go through parliament, so there is always going to be a conflict in terms of members looking at rules that will ultimately determine whether or not they might be re-elected. You only have to look at what is happening in the United States at the moment, where there are some very heated discussions and debates occurring in state legislatures across the United States on what their electoral rules should be as they have come out of a very contentious election with all sorts of pretty spurious allegations of irregularities that have been disproven in the courts. They are now being followed up with a range of pieces of legislation in state legislatures in the United States that are seeking to make it more difficult for people to vote, more difficult to enrol to vote, more difficult to have their say, and making it easier for people to be struck off the roll. Our view on this side of the house has always been that we need to make voting as easy as possible to enrol in. We need to make sure that as many South Australians as possible have the opportunity to have their say—that it is a universal franchise. We need to make sure that we have a system in place that delivers a parliament that reflects the will of the people. What we have here is a piece of legislation that has a number of issues that we would raise as needing further examination and further debate. The first of those is in relation to the amount of time it takes to become able to enrol to vote. It is hard to imagine for many of us here, but there are people out in the real world of South Australia who are not following the ins and outs of politics every single day. Sometimes we have to remind ourselves of that. Sometimes the political process is not at the top of people's minds. Sometimes people are not enrolled to vote who may want to be enrolled to vote. Of course, we want everybody in South Australia who is the appropriate age and has the appropriate ability, in terms of their citizenship, to be enrolled to vote, but there are a lot of people who do not do that. It might not be until the election campaign kicks off and they start to see the corflutes and posters up and see the advertisements on TV that they think, 'I had better check if I'm enrolled to vote.' They might check their enrolment and say, 'Well, I'm not enrolled.' Therefore, we need to allow as much time as possible for people to check and update their enrolment before the election. However, this legislation would turn it the other way. This legislation would mean that people have less time to enrol to vote, and I think that we are yet to be convinced that there is any proper argument that that should be the case, that we should be trying to make it harder for people to enrol to vote. Reducing the franchise of people before an election seems to be a very backward move in terms of what is being proposed in this legislation. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned.