Bills

Electoral (Electronic Documents and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr BROWN (Playford) (16:04): As I was saying before I was interrupted, the opposition as indicated by the member for Kaurna has some concerns with the Electoral (Electronic Documents and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I will get to those in a moment, but first I would like to respond to a few things said rather characteristically by the member for MacKillop in his contribution.

It was rather characteristic because those of us in this chamber would know that the member for MacKillop is a man of contradictions. I think his contribution to this debate was folksy yet learned at the same time and relaxed yet forceful at the same time, as he is wont to be. I think one of the things he did say that I would really like to respond to, and again this is something he raised, is this issue of the fairness criteria in the legislation introduced by the previous government just before the last election.

Again, I think it is worth stating in this place that we in the Labor Party do not feel it is something that should be taken into account, the fact that some members of this place—and I draw attention to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and also the member for MacKillop—are so popular in their local electorates that their margins are so supernumerous that they should have an impact on the state as a whole.

I know modesty prevents you from saying so, Mr Deputy Speaker, but the numbers bear it out. You are incredibly popular in your local electorate, not only in terms of the way the people talk about you but in the votes you manage to get for yourself and for the Liberal Party at election times. If we could figure out on this side of the house what it is that you do locally, we would bottle it and try to give it to our candidates as well.

Having spent some time on Eyre Peninsula recently with you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have seen firsthand just how popular you are. No-one has a bad word to say about you at all that I was able to uncover, I can tell you. In fact, everyone sings your praises constantly. I think perhaps it might be your dedication to the local community, your knowledge of people, the amount of time you have spent in all the towns and in your electorate.

In fact, I was struck also by your knowledge of local businesses. I know that while we were on Eyre Peninsula and spending time with the oyster industry, while we were out on a boat in Smoky Bay, I thought to myself I do not think I know a regional member who is so in touch with industry in their local community. It is to your credit. But the reason I raise that is, again, I do not think the issues regarding the fairness criteria that the member for MacKillop raised in his contribution are particularly apt when we are talking about this bill.

Talking about this bill, we are advised that this particular bill comes from a report received by the Electoral Commissioner. You may ask: was this a report that the government received and the government has had no time to respond and has had to rush in this legislation? No. We know that this report from the Electoral Commissioner has been with the government for over two years. In fact, it is something in the order of 850 days that this report has been with the government.

Why has it taken the government so long to respond to this report? Who knows? Perhaps the Attorney will be happy to enlighten us later on in the debate on this particular bill. But what we do know is that this bill is the response that the government has had to the report. So you might ask: what are the issues that are talked about in the report? I will start off with a very important one that has been flagged regarding enrolment.

The report talks about how the enrolment levels of young people in particular are falling. The report suggests ways in which that might be addressed. You might think the government has taken these recommendations on board but I will let you know what the report had to say about the issue of enrolment. It stated:

At the close of rolls on Friday 23 February 2018, 1,201,775 electors were registered on the state electoral roll and eligible to vote at the State Election, a significant increase of 5.2% from the 2014 Election and the largest ever roll for a South Australian election. This increase reflects population growth, the effects of the federal direct enrolment program and a surge of enrolments in 2017 for the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey. The average number of electors per House of Assembly electoral district was 25,570, with the highest number of electors enrolled in Elizabeth (28,399) and the lowest in Flinders [your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker] (22,756).

South Australians responded positively to ECSA's enrolment campaign in the lead-up to the close of rolls. During the six-day period from the issuing of writs to the close of the rolls there were close to 25,000 enrolments and updates to the electoral roll, representing an increase of 68.2% from the same period in 2014.

However—and this is the important part:

Despite this success, a breakdown of the electoral roll by age groups shows that a significantly high proportion of young South Australians were not on the roll for the Election.

The report has a heading labelled, 'A call for legislative change', so the report itself calls for a change in the legislation. It is headlined, 'Enrolment on the day', and states:

The declining rate of enrolment of younger electors and the increasing numbers of non-voters are a matter of concern not isolated to South Australia. Indeed, there has been longstanding unease about both trends among electoral commissions and commentators in Australia, New Zealand and further afield.

One of the solutions to address falling participation rates successfully implemented by ECSA's counterparts in New South Wales (NSW), New Zealand (NZ), Queensland and Victoria (as well as most Canadian jurisdictions) has been to allow people to enrol after the close of rolls. Although the commissions of these jurisdictions continue to have and to advertise a close of rolls, they allow enrolment on the day as a 'savings provision' to enfranchise people who inadvertently miss the close the rolls. This helps avoid the situation at each election where thousands of people turn up to polling booths and are told they are not on the roll and cannot vote.

ECSA did not record the number of people who attended a polling place at the 2018 State Election and walked away when told they were not on the roll, but we are aware from polling official feedback that there were many potential electors in this circumstance. Records were kept of those who insisted on casting a vote, claiming there must have been an error with the roll. Of the 7,318 people who did so in 2018—

that is 7,318 people who did not just walk away when they were told they were not eligible to vote; they insisted on casting a vote—

just 153 (2%) had their House of Assembly vote counted and 852 (12%) their Legislative Council vote counted, after investigation of their enrolment.

NSW (since 2011) and Victoria (since 2010) permit enrolment up to and including on polling day. NZ (since 2005) and Queensland (since 2017) allow enrolment and voting during the early voting period but not on polling day itself—although Elections NZ is currently investigating extending enrolment to polling day.

The Victorian and NSW electoral commissions consider enrolment on the day a success. In both jurisdictions, the number of voters who have made use of this provision has significantly increased: in NSW from 20,960 in 2011 to 41,978 in 2015; in Victoria from 34,546 in 2010 to 50,653 in 2014. In NZ, where late enrolment has been in place longer, there has been an even more significant rise in enrolments after the close of rolls: from 35,363 in 2005 to 130,757 in 2017 (including 53,000 at pre-poll centres).

This next part is the important part of the call for legislative change in the report:

Given the success of late enrolment options elsewhere in Australasia, ECSA seeks legislative change to bring South Australia into line with other jurisdictions and allow eligible electors to enrol up to and on polling day. Although ECSA would continue to actively promote the close of rolls, enrolment on the day would be a savings provision to help ensure that as many South Australians as possible can participate in state elections.

Recommendation No.1 of the Electoral Commission's report states:

That the Act be amended to enable eligible electors to enrol up to and on polling day. After claiming enrolment, these electors would be allowed to cast declaration votes which would not be admitted to the count until an enrolment investigation had been satisfactorily completed in the week after polling day.

We have here a report from the Electoral Commissioner and a recommendation from the Electoral Commissioner that such provisions be introduced. Where is it in the bill? It cannot be seen. Perhaps the Attorney would like to address that in her summing up of the second reading.

Another thing I would like to talk about is the reduction in enrolment time. We know from the legislation that the government has decided to reduce the period in which people are allowed to enrol, and I do not feel, and the opposition does not feel, that it has been sufficiently explained to us why the government has made this change. In fact, it has been suggested to us by some people that it might be an opportunity, from the government's point of view, to introduce some sort of voter suppression plan, and I find quite it quite distressing that they would think about such things.

We know that there has been extensive contact between the South Australian Liberal Party and elements in the United States that are involved in planned voter suppression. We know, for example, there has been extensive contact between the then opposition leader's office and the i360 organisation in the United States, which has been involved in voter suppression. We know that that organisation has kept detailed files on electors in the United States. Who knows whether the same thing has happened here in Australia? We just do not know. These questions remain unresolved.

However, we do know that in the United States, for example, there has been planned, calculated and targeted voter suppression of those people that organisations, particularly Republican ones, feel do not support them. We would be most distressed if there was any evidence or intent on behalf of the South Australian Liberal Party to get involved in anything along those lines. I think it would be useful for the parliament to hear an undertaking from the Attorney that such things are not done by the South Australian Liberal Party.

Another thing that is included in the bill is an expansion of pre-poll facilities, for example, allowing people to essentially cast an ordinary vote ahead of the election. I had experience as a first-time candidate at the last election. Obviously, I had been involved in pre-poll before as a party worker and volunteer, but I had never taken part as a candidate before. My particular pre-poll booth where I spent most of my time was at Mawson Lakes, and I was impressed by the way in which ECSA had organised the booth. I think its location was well picked, and I do not just say so because the site they chose is quite close to my home at Mawson Lakes, which was good for me.

I also know that it was probably convenient for my opponents, given that car parking was quite readily available at the site, which was good for my SA-Best opponent who had to drive in every day from the Clare Valley where she lived, and also for my Liberal Party opponent who lived at Hope Valley and had to drive in to the electorate every day to campaign. I know that was quite good for them and it was also very convenient for me, and a good opportunity for me to say hello to local voters when they came to cast a pre-poll vote.

One thing that I did notice was that pre-poll voters seemed slightly less engaged in the political process than those I met on election day. I think it is possibly to our detriment and something that we should do with great caution—not only the expansion of this so-called convenience voting, but I think when we take steps along these lines to interrupt the ordinary business and ordinary flow of the casting of people's votes, we need to be very careful that there are not unintended consequences. So I would caution the government around making changes regarding the way in which pre-poll votes are cast.

I think that there are also some things that are very concerning in the bill regarding the possible counting of pre-poll votes before polling day. I know the government assures us that there are things such as privacy provisions and so forth, but I remember my own experience at the 2010 federal election at an early voting centre in the electorate of Boothby where an AEC official, in order to do what he described as 'facilitate the quick counting of the ballot', decided to open all the pre-poll declaration envelopes in advance and stack the ballot papers in piles of 50.

As I said, it was to make it easier to count on the day, to use his own words. Of course, he did not do so in the presence of scrutineers and so that was regarded as a gross breach of ordinary protocols for the AEC and, unfortunately, it led to many thousands of people not having their votes counted, which I find very distressing.

I really would hate to see something along those lines happen in South Australia, particularly in a state election and particularly in some of the electorates where we know that could make the difference. It could mean that on the day you do not know who has won, which could potentially lead to a by-election, which again I think would be quite concerning for the local population.

One of the other things I would like to address is the provisions of this bill that remove the requirement for the Electoral Commissioner to advertise in newspapers. I think in this state we are well served by our newspapers. Of course, we have our great paper of record, the Adelaide Advertiser, but there are a number of regional papers in which I think it should be important for the ECSA to advertise so that they not only inform people but also support local regional newspapers.

I think it is concerning that the government has this attitude of trying to undercut the operations of local media. I really do hope that it is not some sort of plan or proposal to reduce the number of voices that are heard in regional areas and to try to have some sort of monolithic corporate attitude so that small, regional, independently owned newspapers are stifled. I think that would be very concerning and something that I certainly would not want to see.

I would like also to take members to something else that gets mentioned in the report, and that is the EasyVote app. This is a part of the report that might well be missed by members, and I think it is something worth reading. The section is headed Modernising Electoral Services, and it states:

The Potential of the EasyVote App

Although engagement with the App was lower than the ECSA had hoped for, with sufficient promotion prior to future elections the App has the potential to enhance ECSA's provision of information and services to voters and generate cost savings.

There is that phrase again, 'cost savings'. I continue:

Savings could be generated through higher use of the App, given that each elector who obtains their EasyVote details via the App does not require an EasyVote Card to be printed and posted.

The EasyVote App offers a range of exciting possibilities for future elections, including:

serving as one of the means by which electors could apply electronically for a postal vote, as per Recommendation 6 of this Report.

supporting electors to conveniently manage their enrolment information.

And this is something that I found very concerning, and the third one is:

integrating Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) to assist in roll mark-off and prevention of multiple voting.

I think it is important for the government to explain what the commissioner and the government mean by using RFID tracking technology to ‘assist people to cast their votes’. The idea that people are tracked or that their individual identification is used to identify them for the purposes of casting their electoral vote, I find very disturbing.

We are given assurances, for example, about QR codes, and we accept the government's assurances on those, but the concerns that lots of people have about the tracking abilities of QR technology, the idea that we will not even use QR codes anymore, that some somehow people's phones or other RFID devices will be used to track them and used on the electoral roll—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: It can happen now.

Mr BROWN: The Attorney says, 'It can happen how.' I ask the Attorney to explain to the chamber what it is the ECSA and the government have in store for using this technology at election time? That will give her an opportunity to explain to us what it is and why we need not be necessarily worried about it.

Mr Picton interjecting:

Mr BROWN: Indeed—some sort of brave new world type thing. I am not sure exactly what they have planned. Briefly, in the time that I have, I would just like to express a couple of things which I am actually glad are not in this bill and which the government has put forward previously, and those are OPV and a ban on corflutes. I think it is pleasing, and I would give credit to the Attorney for acknowledging the fact that there is not support for those two provisions previously put forward by the government and removing them from the bill that is now before us.

I think it is important from time to time in government to acknowledge that you do not have support for these ideas. As much as you might want to passionately to bring them forward, it is worthwhile abandoning them and not wasting the parliament's time in endlessly debating things there is not support for. On that note, I express my views on this bill and look forward to hearing the contribution of others.

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (16:24): I, too, rise to speak on the Electoral (Electronic Documents and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2021, a bill that I understand is based on a report that has sat gathering dust for more than two years and which the Marshall Liberal government has now decided to roll out in the home stretch towards the 2022 election.

Of course, this seems like bread-and-butter politics for this conservative side of politics. There are many, many times that we have seen them desperately try to change the rules when they sense that their sense of entitlement, power and privilege is under threat. We saw it, of course, when former Prime Minister John Howard made very late sweeping changes to the Electoral Act in 2006, which included removing the last vestiges of prisoner franchise, the early closure of the electoral rolls and increased identity requirements, amongst other measures, that they desperately hoped would increase the Coalition vote.

There are, of course, other examples of this sort of manoeuvring and tweaking of the electoral laws by conservatives in South Australia and beyond. I do not have time to canvass all of them in the short time that I have available today; however, I am sure that a number of my colleagues will certainly traverse those issues.

So here we are, about nine months from a state election, with the Marshall Liberal government, who are likely reflecting on their term, worrying that it could just be that singular term, and likely reflecting on their waste of three years of government throughout which we have seen absolutely no vision articulated in terms of utilities and infrastructure and, crucially, no vision articulated in terms of the hopes and aspirations for South Australian people and particularly no vision for those people who most need our support, whose voices most need to be heard by us in this place.

No empathy whatsoever has been shown for those who most need governments to hear them, and, in many cases, as we see in the case of Catherine House, who most need this government to fund them. We also see no plan for economic recovery post the pandemic, and a complete and utter lack of cohesiveness within their own party. It is very clear that this bill is all about trying to change the rules at the last moment to shore up votes and it is utterly uninspiring and utterly disgraceful.

The Attorney moved a similar bill, one loaded with similar unpleasantries to this one, late last year. It is astounding that the Attorney and the Marshall Liberal government, after hearing the concerns of members in this place and indeed in the other place in relation to that bill, have decided to bring another bill with many similarities back again. It is a move that reeks of that lack of vision that I spoke about.

Good governments rely on their actions, on their record and on their hopes for the future of the state, which they share with our community, not desperate attempts to change the rules to protect themselves. The previous bill that was introduced was so poorly constructed that the government in the other place had to heavily amend it due to its failure to properly draft it and, incredibly importantly, to properly consider the recommendations of the report which underpinned it.

I must say that this is not dissimilar to another bill currently before the other house, the Children and Young People (Safety) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2020, which was also bizarrely heavily amended by the government despite their only having just drafted it, or despite them having drafted it a year after they should have done.

That bill and this bill that we contemplate this afternoon are both examples of their not listening to a report and not responding to what the community wants from them. The government in this bill is shamefully attempting to reduce the amount of time provided to voters to enrol to vote. It is attempting to allow voters to vote over the telephone and also to enable the counting of pre-poll votes before the closure of the polls.

One's intentions can often be seen through their omissions. That is certainly the case with this bill. The 2018 election report this bill is based on completely ignores recommendation 1, which clearly calls for eligible electors to enrol up to and on polling day. This measure, aimed at addressing a particularly worrying declining trend in the enrolment of young voters, has been completely ignored by this government despite it being in that report. I understand that a shocking 38.9 per cent of 18 year olds were not enrolled at the time of the 2018 election and that just 25.4 per cent of voters between 18 and 24 were also not enrolled at the time of the 2018 election.

This government have not only decided to ignore this recommendation of the Electoral Commission but they are also doing the exact opposite by reducing the amount of time to enrol to vote. This is undoubtedly due to their worry that younger people are more inclined to vote progressively. Almost 25,000 South Australians enrolled to vote in the week prior to the last election. Under this appalling bill, if it were successful, that would mean that 25,000 people would simply be denied their basic democratic rights.

More than ever, we should be doing everything we possibly can to encourage and empower young South Australians to exercise their democratic rights. We should be doing everything we possibly can to empower and to grow the voice and the leadership of young people in communities across our state. They, young people, hold the future of communities across our state in their hands. It is they who will bear the brunt of the impact of policies that are made today in relation to our environment, in relation to our economy and in relation to the way we do or do not include and celebrate people and ensure equality of opportunity for every member of our South Australian community.

It is absolutely clear that young people also currently bear many of the troubling issues that we contemplate in terms of our economic recovery through COVID-19. So many of the industries deeply impacted by the pandemic—hospitality, the arts, the event industries, sport, recreation and fitness—employed a plethora of young people, often in work that has traditionally been characterised by job insecurity, low pay and many other factors. This generation of young people, unlike generations that have gone before, are much more likely to be engaged in casual employment and more likely to be unemployed than ever before.

As at April, the figure for unemployed young South Australians was 16.4 per cent, the worst figure in the country. There is a growing body of evidence about the rate of underemployment amongst young people here in South Australia. This is the generation that for decades to come will contemplate the harsh realities of what the pandemic brought to our economy. To traverse a path through this bill that could potentially see so many more young people not engaged in the democratic process is utterly unacceptable at any time, and at this time it is deeply shocking.

Like many people in this place, I love doing whatever I can in our community in the south to empower and to grow the voice of young people. Seeing young people become deeply engaged in the political process, exploring and sharing their views, identifying what is important to them, leading discussions, challenging, exploring ideas, gives me and many others in this place great joy.

I am sure that I am not alone when I say that one of the great gifts of being a member of parliament is the opportunity we have to talk with young people in our communities—visiting their classes, having tours here in our parliament. I am sure I am not alone when I say that one of the first questions that I ask young people when they visit our parliament or when I visit their school to talk about the democratic process and how they can get involved is what is it that is important to them? What do they really care about? What is something about their community that they love? What is something they would love to try to change?

It is truly inspiring that every time I ask those questions there are a multitude of answers, and I am always inspired by the fact that young people care deeply about their community, and they are passionate about the things they would like to change, and a plethora of answers come up every time I ask that question. My next question is often: 'You have identified what you really care deeply about. How is it that you go about making change?' We talk about being active in the community and bringing people together around a particular issue and, rightly, we have that discussion about that process of activism.

We also talk about how important it is for young people to engage in the democratic process in terms of making change for them to vote and to continue to involve themselves in making change in the issues they care deeply about at that school age and as they traverse the journey through their life and come across many other issues they will care passionately about. Anything that takes away from the participation of young people in our democracy is an absolute travesty, and I think that the provisions that are in this bill that completely ignore the recommendation of the report on which this bill is based are an absolute travesty.

As I have said earlier in my remarks this afternoon, the Liberal Party does, however, have form when it comes to voter suppression, particularly here in South Australia, although I do concede the conservatives have given it a pretty good shake in other jurisdictions, including Queensland during the very strange days of the Bjelke-Petersen government. The so-called Playmander gave South Australians in country areas double the votes of those who live in the city.

Then we had a clause unique to South Australia, which was basically a watered-down version of that Playmander. Today, we have the Electoral (Electronic Documents and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2021. Like a poor tribute band rolled out after the cancellation of the original main act, this bill really should have been called the Bjorn Again Bill or something similar. Where this paltry attempt to distort our democratic rights comes from is anybody's guess.

Perhaps the Attorney and the Marshall Liberal government as a whole looked at what has been happening in the US state of Georgia, where voter suppression has been taken to new and deeply alarming levels, and thought, 'Gee, here is something we can try here.' A recent Washington Post article highlighted how conservatives in the US are enacting similar measures after the humiliating defeat of Donald Trump. That article states:

The GOP's national push to enact hundreds of new election restrictions could strain every available method of voting for tens of millions of Americans, potentially amounting to the most sweeping contraction of ballot access in the United States since the end of Reconstruction…

In 43 states across the country, Republican lawmakers have proposed at least 250 laws that would limit mail, early in-person and Election Day voting with such constraints as stricter ID requirements, limited hours or narrower eligibility to vote absentee…

Sounds familiar, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I was so incredibly proud that on 18 December 2019 we wholeheartedly celebrated our state's place in changing the face of democracy here in Australia and right across the world. In December 2019, we celebrated 125 years since a group of fierce, activist women fearlessly and successfully fought for their right to vote and their right to stand for parliament, making South Australia the first place in Australia and the second place in the world to achieve this. As that first jurisdiction here in Australia and second in the world to respond to the fight of women to secure their voting franchise, you would expect that all parties would always look to build on that strong foundation and expand participation in our democracy, rather than reduce it for its own cynical, political purposes.

As others have done, I, too, wish to raise grave concerns about the counting of pre-poll votes before the closing of polls. Knowing how so many votes have been cast and to which candidates before election day has the potential to impact on the choices electors make on election day. The government's assurances that protections will be implemented, developed and installed via regulations are completely and utterly unsatisfactory and absolutely reduce this parliament's oversight of these proposed changes.

If the government wanted these changes, it should have set out the protections and the suggestions in the content of this bill so that our parliament could have thoroughly explored what was being proposed. As I mentioned earlier, former Prime Minister John Howard was master of this type of undemocratic and sneaky reform. However, it is worth noting that around the same time John Howard was trashing our federal electoral laws the Bracks Labor government in Victoria was also reforming its electoral laws for that state's upper house.

Unlike John Howard, Steve Bracks democratised the upper house to potentially his own party's detriment. He did it because, unlike those opposite, he valued particular principles. That is in stark contrast to what the Attorney-General is attempting to do here today. I absolutely do not commend this bill to the house.

I urge every member to carefully consider our responsibility as members of this parliament to enable people's participation in the democratic process and particularly to think about our history in that regard and the desire we should all have as members of this place to encourage, to grow, to empower and to engender the voice, participation in the democratic process and leadership of young South Australians.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (16:43): Deputy Speaker, I would like to commence my remarks on this bill with an apology to you. Although I might be harking back to a previous debate on a previous bill, I feel I was negligent in my comments last night for not thanking you and recognising you for the extraordinary effort you put in through the course of the committee stage of the voluntary assisted dying debate. While I cannot wax lyrical or as lengthily as the member for Playford about your extraordinary popularity in your electorate based around Eyre Peninsula, what I can say is that it is also reflected in this house on all sides of parliament. It is going to be an awful shame, sir, to see you go at the end of this session of parliament at the end of this year.

Nevertheless, we will make the best of the time we have left—and we do not have much time left, with only 20-odd sitting days until parliament rises at the end of the year. Some people in their contributions so far have been critical of the Deputy Premier for bringing in such a substantive reform to electoral laws so late in the piece. I say to them that I think they are being a bit harsh because the Deputy Premier has had a very heavy load of legislative reform so far in this term of the parliament.

Mr Brown: Like what?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Well, it is funny that the member for Playford should ask. What about the extraordinary commitment to reform in the legal system that we have had with the reintroduction of Queen's Counsel? Nothing could be closer to the top of the agenda for reform of the criminal justice system than that. Not only has that been reintroduced at some great length to the proceedings of this parliament, but people might be surprised to learn that it has had absolutely no impact on case backlogs and waiting lists for those people awaiting justice or those accused awaiting their trial.

Aside from the reintroduction of that extraordinary reform, we have of course had not one but two cracks at reform to the all-important gift card regime in South Australia. Not only was there the extraordinary reform that has revolutionised the South Australian economy by allowing people to use gift cards for a slightly longer period of time, but after introducing those laws we then had to repeal them after the commonwealth government made it quite clear to other jurisdictions around the country that they would be moving so—and had signalled that well in advance. That had to be reformed.

Of course, we then had a very lengthy period of time delaying, discussing and finally deciding the fuel price monitoring regime here in South Australia. The Deputy Premier initially gave short shrift to the RAA and its proposed model before, years later and with hundreds of thousands of South Australian motorists unnecessarily paying higher prices at the bowser, finally introducing that reform.

So I say to people who have been critical of the Deputy Premier, 'Fair go, really,' because there has been extraordinary reform that she has brought to this place. However, perhaps she is just saving the best for last. Perhaps the coup de grace for this term of the parliament from the Deputy Premier will be a wholly unnecessary, wholly unwarranted and outrageous curbing of the franchise here in South Australia.

Rather than expanding the capacity of South Australians to enrol to vote in the lead-up to a state election, it is the Deputy Premier's view that we should instead be restricting it. There have been many politicians of both political persuasions, particularly from this chamber, who have worked extremely hard—to their own detriment and, in fact, to the end of their own political careers in some cases—to try to expand our opportunity for democratic elections in South Australia.

In fact a former Premier, the Hon. Steele Hall, whose portrait we now see hung in the Speaker's corridor—bearing, I must say, without offence to the artist who proposed it, an uncanny resemblance to a picture popularised in the American sitcom Seinfeld—fought, after agreement with Don Dunstan, to finally get rid of the Playmander, colloquially describing the gerrymander that had been on foot here in South Australia for decades.

So there is a person, there is a Liberal politician, who paid with their own political career in order to advance the interests of democracy in South Australia. I find it extraordinary that in the shadow of the leadership of someone like Steele Hall—one of the five who broke away from the conservative party in South Australia, who formed the Liberal Movement in South Australia, who gave birth to the moderate faction of the modern-day Liberal Party in South Australia of which the Deputy Premier is now a flag-bearer—an acolyte of Steele Hall such as the Deputy Premier would now be seeking to move in the opposite direction. That is a very regressive step.

While we can quote statistics about the number of young South Australians at the last two elections, as previous speakers have, of people aged 18 or between 18 and 24 who remained unenrolled at the time of the election and how that number sufficed to contribute an entire additional electorate in South Australia of 25,000 potential voters, I also draw the house's attention to the fact that the democratic institutions and the processes that underpin them—our elections and our electoral processes—are constantly under threat. They need vigilance and a commitment to progression, not regression, in order to maintain the integrity of our democratic process.

You have had the member for Reynell, the member for Kaurna and the member for Playford make reference to what is happening in other parts of the world. We are a parliament conceived in the Westminster tradition; there are not too many of them around the world. A version of the Westminster parliament, perhaps a little different in many ways from our own, is the American political system with its different representative institutions at both state and federal level. They have been battling this for well over a century.

Ever since the legal abolition of slavery and the commencement of the Reconstruction Era, there has been a constant battle, particularly amongst the southern states of the United States, to push back against those conservative governments that sought to restrict the franchise, particularly of Black American potential voters. They made sure that places where people could enrol to vote were only open at times when people would find it extremely difficult to be able to get to them. They made sure that they had unreasonable hurdles to jump in order to provide a sufficient level of identity.

These have been ongoing battles for decades in other places around the world that seek to maintain the burning fire of democracy. For a parliament like we have in South Australia—which has such a proud history of extending the franchise to people and has a world-leading position in doing so—to be presented with a bill like this that seeks to do the opposite, quite frankly, is not only offensive to us and the community but it is historically offensive as well.

Of course, we should know the lesson that the member for Florey enjoys teaching us so well about the struggle of suffragettes like Muriel Matters, and even her colleague the person after whom my electorate is named, Mary Lee, in order to ensure that finally legislation was passed to give women the right to vote. Even at the death knell of that parliamentary debate, in some tricky manoeuvre the conservatives of that day and age thought that inserting into the electoral reform bill that they were faced with the right for women to stand for parliament would be so egregious and offensive to members that it would cause the entire reform to be voted down. In fact, as we know, it had the opposite effect.

We have a really proud tradition of reforming our electoral laws for the benefit of democracy, and this is not what this does. I am also concerned that, other than the restrictions on enrolment and the impacts that will have on the franchise in South Australia, once again, we have an attack by this Liberal government on the print media in South Australia. This is now the third piece of legislation that this government has brought into this place in the last three years that removes the requirement of government agencies to advertise in print media across South Australia.

You would know better than most, Deputy Speaker, representing a rural or regional electorate, how important local newspapers are. Removing the requirement to place in this instance electoral advertisements or removing the requirement, as we have seen in previous bills, for fire alert or fire danger warning public notices, or other public notices under the Development Act or other public notices for other reasons, not only serves to diminish the capacity of those forms of media to stay viable and stay open—of course, I am not couching my argument just that we should be funding the media in order to keep their doors open—but, as it suggests, it makes it harder for South Australians to gain access to important information.

If we had been witness over the past three years to an ongoing campaign from the Electoral Commission of South Australia to encourage people to enrol to vote, to encourage people to understand their right to vote and how they can go about voting, I would be happy to retract some of my comments. But we have not seen that at all. This is a slightly more regular political Halley's comet effort that we get from the Electoral Commission of South Australia. Once every four years the shutters come back up, the doors open and the lights turn on and suddenly there is an effort to conduct a state election here in South Australia. There is no ongoing effort in order to improve voting here in South Australia.

When there is a lack of public advertising, when there is a restriction on the time frames when people can vote, when there are changes to proposed polling places and the operation of those polling places and when there are also very significant changes proposed in how votes can be counted even before the end of the time that is allotted for polling, you can understand why many MPs feel discomfort with this bill.

It is extraordinary that on the very day that this bill was introduced here into this parliament we had an electoral analyst from the ABC, nationally famous Antony Green, providing a presentation here in the evening about the benefits of the Deputy Premier's bill. I am the first to admit that sometimes, particularly early on in the coverage, there can be some flat spots on election night coverage.

There can be an awkward delay between the time that polls close, the dot points that the invited panellists have hastily prepared on the cab ride on the way to the TV studio, since those dot points are exhausted at approximately seven minutes past six, and about an hour and a half later when the substantive votes come in. I understand that. However, we are not in the business of organising our polling places and our vote counting for the benefit of electoral coverage. We are interested in doing this for the maximum expansion of the franchise to South Australians and also for the integrity of the vote.

I notice that the bill removes local returning officers from electoral districts. Instead of having a returning officer for each electoral district who is charged with the responsibility of carrying out the election in each electoral district, that is replaced with the Electoral Commissioner. For example, for the elections that are necessary to constitute members of this house, rather than having 47 returning officers we will now have just the Electoral Commissioner. That is a regressive move. That is not in the interests of anyone who is contesting an election in one of the electoral districts to win a seat in this place.

This means that, rather than someone being dedicated to the effort of making sure that elections are conducted appropriately and in accordance with the law, fairly and evenly in each electoral district, that responsibility instead is stumped up to a sole person, and that is the Electoral Commissioner. They are going to be busy enough because they retain all their existing responsibilities in addition to these 47 new responsibilities, as well as the responsibilities the elections for the nearly half-dozen members of the other place will impose on them.

It is not as though the Deputy Premier has been wont over the last three state budgets to furnish the Electoral Commission with additional financial resources—in fact, quite the opposite. Across nearly all areas of the Deputy Premier's responsibilities we have had very significant financial funding cuts that have limited their ability to carry out their work.

It could be, for example, for victim support services or for court services to support victims of domestic violence—they have been cut as well—let alone managed taxi ranks, safe city grants, CCTV grants for the CBD and the list goes on. Right when our state, like the remainder of the country, is having an awakening to the growing crisis of domestic violence and the plight of victims, the Deputy Premier has been removing funding from those support services—not really in tune with the public mood, and here it is again in the superintendence of our elections here in South Australia. So this is not a good reform whatsoever.

The last point I would make is if the Deputy Premier had confidence in her reforms, if she genuinely thought that all these measures that are either set out or intimated in this bill were worthy of the parliament's support, then she would have set them all out and she would not have relied on lazy clauses in the bill that leave out the necessary detail, later to be provided in regulation. That is simply not good enough. We do not have any visibility as to what those regulations might stipulate, we certainly do not have a draft of them, we do not know when they might be presented to the parliament and we certainly do not know when they may come into force. That is simply not good enough.

If the Deputy Premier has had three years of working behind the scenes while the parliament could discharge the other important reforms that she has brought to us, such as the reintroduction of Queen's Counsel titles and gift card reform, then we should certainly have the regulations that have been prepared for a bill of this importance—but of course we do not. From the Deputy Premier it is, 'No, trust me. I've got all that in hand. It will all be okay. You can take my word for it. Those regulations will all be fine.'

We cannot rely on the Deputy Premier because the rest of the bill implies the completely opposite flavour. How you could restrict the opportunity for young South Australians to enrol to vote before a four-yearly election I think is an extraordinary and outrageous move. How you could deliberately remove returning officers from local electorate districts to make it harder for those individual elections to be managed I think is a regressive move.

Not to be able to provide the sufficient detail in the bill and instead rely on future regulations is simply not good enough, and to remove the public advertising requirements and instead say it will be put up on some website, presumably with some sort of clever data harvesting mechanism from the Liberal Party for them, is not good enough. You can gather that we are not in favour of many of these elements of the bill and that we have a lot of questions to ask of the Deputy Premier when it comes to the committee stage.

Mr BOYER (Wright) (17:03): I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.