Bills

Electoral (Electronic Documents and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 9 June 2021.)

The SPEAKER: The member for Kaurna is on his feet, I understand.

An honourable member interjecting:

The SPEAKER: He was, he is and he will be.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (12:02): Exactly. I hope to provide a continuing contribution on my feet in relation to this important matter. As I was saying yesterday, this is a bill that is very similar to the legislation brought by the Attorney-General in the parliament in the last few sitting weeks. It is a bit of deja vu. This is very similar to the bill introduced late last year by the Attorney-General and has since been defeated in the Legislative Council.

One of the key reasons it was defeated was that the proposal involved changing the rules for the election so close to the election, changing the rules effectively in the last quarter. We are now even later in the four-year parliamentary term than we were then and the Attorney is now seeking to substantially change the electoral rules,.

As far as I am aware, the electoral campaign period, as far as the Electoral Commission and Electoral Act are concerned with regard to funding and disclosure requirements, kicks off from 1 July, so we are 20-odd days away from that regime starting. Clearly, I think it is unlikely that this bill would be passed through both houses of parliament and assented to before then.

What we would be doing is changing the electoral laws after that campaign period, according to the Electoral Act's funding and disclosure system, had already started. We would be well into the period before the election when substantial changes would be made very close to the Electoral Act period and very close to the election, certainly within only a matter of months before the writs would be issued for the next state election in February next year. Those writs would be issued, of course, for the election in March.

It is a bit shocking that, despite the Attorney hearing those concerns from members in this place and the other place about changing the rules so late, we have continued to have this bill reintroduced now with some notable issues absent, but substantially the same legislation. This has been an issue where the Attorney is saying she is relying upon advice from the Electoral Commission; however, that advice has been around for some time.

In fact, I believe it was tabled by the Attorney on 28 February 2019, so well over two years ago. In fact, over 830 days ago is when the Electoral Commissioner's work was tabled, but we are only getting this legislation again now. It is going to be debated and considered by houses of parliament likely when we are well into that official campaign period, as far as the Electoral Act in relation to funding and disclosure starts, from 1 July.

So why was there such a delay in terms of the Attorney acting if she is so concerned about these issues, from February 2019 until now? You have to wonder why she has sat on this report for so long, did not take action when it was provided to her in 2019, but now waits until the shadow of the election to substantially seek to change the rules.

Even when the previous bill was introduced, it was so unfinished that the government sought to heavily amend it in the other place. There were parts of it that had been missed, and there were parts of it that had not been considered properly, which shows what a shambolic process this has been from the Attorney-General.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a point of order.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I suggest that the member is reflecting on a vote in the other place and that is disorderly.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will listen carefully.

Mr PICTON: Point of order, Deputy Speaker: I thought the standing orders say that you cannot reflect on a vote in this place, but I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bear with us, we are just seeking advice on that. Continue on, member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: I will continue and we will come back, and if I am allowed to I will reflect—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Certainly, I will inform you of what you are allowed to do.

Mr PICTON: —even more so, if I am allowed to. I think it is always good to test the Attorney—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Kaurna, standing order120 states:

A Member may not refer to any debate in the other House of Parliament or to any measure impending in that House.

So it is not clear whether that is reflecting on a vote or not; anyway, I will listen carefully. Let's see how we go.

Mr PICTON: My reading of that standing order 120 is certainly that it is appropriate that you could say that there were amendments filed and it looks like what we had was a pretty shambolic process by the government, where they did not even have their own legislation in fit and proper order when they were introducing this the last time. That is presumably why the Attorney-General is so precious about my referring to that now that she is seeking to use standing orders to try to prevent me from pointing that out.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: It's disrespect for the Legislative Council.

Mr PICTON: Well, I think the Minister for Environment can tell us a bit about disrespect for the Legislative Council.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, the member for Kaurna! As the Speaker has—

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Chaffey, order! As the Speaker has noted a couple of times in recent weeks, conversations across the chamber are particularly distasteful and out of order, so that will cease, and, please, member for Kaurna, do not be tempted to respond to interjections. You are free to continue your contribution now, without casting any aspersions on other members.

Mr PICTON: I do have to raise a point of order, and I ask the member for Chaffey to withdraw his offensive comment that he made across the chamber.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was aware that the member for Chaffey was interjecting. I am not aware of what he said, but you are saying, member for Kaurna, that you took offence to whatever was said?

Mr PICTON: Yes, I took offence. The member for Chaffey called me a gutter snake, and I ask him to withdraw and apologise.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Given that that term is unparliamentary, I will ask the member for Chaffey to withdraw that comment.

Mr WHETSTONE: I will not withdraw and apologise. I did not call him a gutter snake.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Given that the interjection was responded to—my recollection is that it was responded to—it has more than likely been captured by the Hansard, so let us continue on, and I will look at that Hansard when it becomes available and come back to you.

Mr PICTON: Just incredible. Thank you, Deputy Speaker. This is clearly a process which has been shambolic in relation to the government when they last introduced this legislation. They did not have the legislation in a form that they even believe themselves could be passed by the parliament. There were parts of it that had been missed. There were parts of it that had not been considered.

We are, of course, pleased that this legislation no longer contains some of the worst elements that it was proposed to contain when the Attorney-General brought it to the house before, particularly in relation to optional preferential voting. It was a real failed thought bubble from the Attorney-General. It was really aimed at trying to kill off any potential new independent candidates ever seeking and winning election to this house of parliament.

Unfortunately, that does not mean that the remaining parts of this legislation proposed by the Attorney-General are all good. The government are again trying to pick and choose what electoral reform they will bring on, clearly to benefit them. Some of the issues in relation to this legislation include reducing the amount of time to enrol to vote—that is clearly a significant concern in relation to this legislation; allowing any class of voter prescribed in regulation to vote over the telephone; and allowing the counting of pre-poll votes before the close of the polls. The first recommendation of the 2018 election report, which was tabled, as I said, more than 830 days ago was:

That the Electoral Act (1985) (the Act) be amended to enable eligible electors to enrol up to and on polling day.

Mr BROWN: Point of order, Deputy Speaker: I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

Mr PICTON: That first recommendation was clearly that the act be amended to enable eligible voters to enrol up to and on polling day. That would clearly give effect to the most potential franchise of voters at the election. If we did not have a barrier to enrol, we could make sure that anybody who wanted to, who was eligible to, could be on the roll and vote on election day. I would have thought that you cannot miss it; it is recommendation No. 1, and the further explanation takes up the entirety of page 15.

The rate of enrolment of young voters is declining: 38.9 per cent of 18 year olds were not enrolled at the 2018 election, along with 25.4 per cent of voters between 18 and 24. When you consider that the issues at play in state elections will impact future generations for their lifetime, it is a staggering figure that one in four under 24 year olds are not able to vote—let alone whether they vote or not—because they are not on the electoral roll. We have this presumption that everybody is voting. We have universal franchise. We have compulsory voting, so there is a presumption that everybody is voting. Clearly that is not the case, particularly when it comes to young people, where almost 40 per cent of 18 year olds and 25 per cent of 18 to 24 year olds are not on the electoral roll.

Why is the government trying to make it harder for people to get on the roll for the election in those weeks before the election rather than making it easier, which is what the report was recommending? Is this a deliberate delaying tactic by the government? Are they making that decision because they think they are not likely to get a large share of those young people's votes, and that perhaps those young people are concerned about climate change and concerned about the future of our economy and their jobs.

We have a significantly high youth unemployment rate in South Australia, one of the highest, if not the highest in the country consistently. Perhaps the government are making a decision that they do not want many of those young people on the roll because they are not going to get a significant percentage of their votes. They have not only decided to go against the recommendation of the Electoral Commission but they have gone in the complete opposite direction, reducing the amount of time to enrol to vote and therefore making it harder for young people to get enrolled to vote in future elections.

In the six days before the 2018 election, almost 25,000 South Australians enrolled to vote. That is a huge number of people. That is the equivalent of one electorate, one of us here in this chamber representing those 25,000 people who enrolled to vote in the six days before the election. If you assume that it was evenly spread over the six days, it is probably about 4,000 new enrolments a day. If the government has their way, they could conceivably see 16,000 South Australians miss the opportunity to vote because of the reduced time for South Australians to enrol to vote that they are proposing in this legislation.

South Australia has a long history of universal suffrage. We were the first place in the world to allow women both the right to vote and to run for parliament, and the second place in the world, after New Zealand, where women had the right to vote. We have just recently celebrated the 125^th anniversary of that milestone. In this chamber we have an amazing tapestry put up, I believe in 1994, to mark the centenary.

But here we have the government going in the opposite direction, trying to make it harder for people to enrol to vote for seemingly no reason whatsoever. Of course, this is nothing new. As I mentioned yesterday, we have had a long history in South Australia where the conservative forces have tried to make it more difficult for people to vote and have tried to make voting unequal across the state.

The Playmander that was in place across South Australia for decades upon decades deprived an equal share of the power of people's votes, which meant that clear majorities, not just in the two-party preferred vote but in the primary vote, could not elect governments in this state because you had people who were in some areas, based on where they lived, getting many multiples more the power of their vote than other people in the state.

We then had, of course, the discussion around the fairness clause and it actually achieved the exact opposite of what the Liberal Party said that its intentions were as part of that. Now we have another example of the Liberal Party trying to disenfranchise voters, presumably for their own gain. I believe it is absolutely shameful that that has been proposed.

In recent days, we have even heard about the sort of Americanisation of trying to internally branch stack the Liberal Party, signing up hundreds of members, and allegations that we should not regard differences between church and state. These are very worrying trends that we are seeing from the Liberal Party in terms of how our democracy would operate. It is a clear Americanisation after what has been happening in America.

Clearly, since the last presidential election, we have seen in America moves across states to try to disenfranchise voters there. These have all been pushed by the conservative side of politics to make it harder for people in low socio-economic areas and people of different racial backgrounds to vote. It is absolutely disgusting what is happening there. Have a look at an article recently in The Washington Post entitled 'How GOP-backed voting measures could create hurdles for tens of millions of voters'. This was by Amy Gardner and others on 11 March this year:

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, when Southern states curtailed the voting rights of formerly enslaved Black men, a Washington Post analysis has found.

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, according to data compiled as of Feb. 19 by the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice. Even more proposals have been introduced since then.

Proponents say the provisions are necessary to shore up public confidence in the integrity of elections after the 2020 presidential contest, when then-President Donald Trump's unsubstantiated claims of election fraud convinced millions of his supporters that the results were rigged against him.

But in most cases, Republicans are proposing solutions in states where elections ran smoothly, including in many with results that Trump and his allies did not contest or allege to be tainted by fraud. The measures are likely to disproportionately affect those in cities and Black voters in particular, who overwhelmingly vote Democratic—laying bare, critics say, the GOP's true intent: gaining electoral advantage.

I would suggest that what we are seeing here is very similar. We have a proposal that is exactly the opposite of what the Electoral Commissioner has recommended, which was to make it easier. This is the opposite of what the Electoral Commissioner said, where they said we should make it easier for people to enrol to vote. Now we have a proposal that is making it harder for people to enrol to vote.

How is that improving our democracy? I think we have a very good democracy in South Australia, and I think that making it harder for people to enrol to vote is clearly a step backwards, one that this parliament should consider and scrutinise the reasons for very carefully, particularly when you consider who might gain advantage out of making it harder for young people to enrol to vote narrowly before an election. That, I would submit—

Mr BROWN: Sir, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

Mr PICTON: As I was saying, what we are seeing is a clear drive from this government and this Attorney-General to make it harder for people to vote, which is very similar to what we are seeing in the United States, where there are many proposals that will make it difficult for people to vote, trying to reduce the eligibility of people to vote and trying to make it a lot harder. Previously, the government have put forward proposals that would reduce eligibility in relation to people who have been prisoners, and now we are even seeing it in relation to people enrolling to vote.

It is clear that when you are looking at measures in relation to enrolment, any electoral scholar will tell you that they would impact people of low socio-economic status and people from culturally and linguistically diverse communities more than higher income or Anglo-Saxon people. That is clear if you look at any statistics in relation to the people who are more likely to be enrolling later in the piece. The other key factor is people who are younger, when you look at that high percentage of people who we know are already not on the electoral roll.

If you look at other states, they are going in the opposite direction of what is being proposed here in South Australia. We see state after state making it easier for people to enrol to vote where there is enrolment up to election day, just as has been proposed here by the Electoral Commissioner, yet we have the Attorney-General inexplicably going in the opposite direction.

We do not think that we should be following the similar moves that we have seen in the United States and elsewhere to erode those elements of our democracy that make it easy for people to enrol to vote; I think that would be a significant step backwards. We know that there have been issues repeatedly through our history in relation to who has been entitled to vote and, clearly, a stain on our history has been in regard to the eligibility of Aboriginal South Australians and Australians to vote. They were denied the right to vote from the early days of Federation until the 1960s.

By reducing the time to enrol, we risk disenfranchising many groups: young first-time voters, new Australians, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and many others. We should be looking to expand our participation in representing our democracy and not going in the opposite direction.

There is also a significant change that is being proposed in relation to this bill when it comes to assisted voting, which was used for sight-impaired electors in South Australia for the first time in 2018 using electronically-assisted software called VoteAssist. The Electoral Commission said that it was successful and welcomed by sight-impaired electors. The problem was that it was very costly, and changes were made in parliament late enough that it needed to be rushed. As a result, we understand that it was used only by 100 or so voters in the last election.

I note that a provision was added to the act and commenced in June 2017. Even if this bill is rushed through this and the other chamber it will commence even closer to the next election than the legislation that happened back in 2017—again, trying to move the goalposts of the election very close to when the election is actually going to be happening, and certainly within that electoral period, which starts from 1 June, according to our new laws.

I think that everyone in this place supports the idea that voters with a disability have access to assisted voting if they need it. Under the current postal system, many voters who are overseas struggle to have their votes counted on time. I suspect that the 2022 election will have far fewer electors attempt to vote from overseas than we have seen in the past given the impacts of the COVID-19 worldwide pandemic and the number of ex-pat Australians who have returned to Australia since that has begun. However, I am sure that there will still be some significant number of former South Australians living overseas who will be keen to vote in that state election.

The Electoral Commission says that they prefer telephone-assisted voting rather than the specially designed computer terminals with the VoteAssist software to reduce the cost of a wider rollout. These are noble ambitions, but the problem is that the wording of this bill does not actually mention people with a disability, with the exception of sight-impaired electors, and it does not mention people who are trying to vote overseas.

The Attorney is saying that we should effectively trust her with regard to the eligibility of who is being intended for these measures as to whether they are people with disability or overseas electors. What the bill says about the people who can access assisted voting is any sight-impaired elector or any class of elector prescribed by regulation.

Not only will we be moving the goalposts right before the election but we are then handing the power to the government of the day to determine who should be able to use that, rather than the parliament determining that ourselves. Those are very big questions to put in the hands of the government of the day by regulation in terms of what class of electors should be able to use assisted voting by telephone, or other means, to do that. I would argue that I think that is something that the parliament should determine the eligibility of and not be left to the Attorney-General who may, right before the election, change the regulations to include classes of electors that her and the cabinet determine is best rather than that process going through the parliament.

There is no restriction on the class of elector prescribed by the regulation, so if the government were so minded they could make extremely large classes of electors eligible for assisted voting. Alternatively, they could make very few voters, other than sight-impaired people, eligible for assisted voting. We do not know. The government have said that this gives them the flexibility to deal with new classes of voters as they arise, which is the sort of standard thing you hear from the government when they want to have the power to do something and not have the parliament consider the particular classes.

What passing this clause will mean is that, despite whatever the government might say now, we must be okay with the fact that it could mean that any class of elector could access electronic voting without a decision of the parliament, particularly when you consider that those regulations may well be put in after parliament rises, so there would be no opportunity for a house of parliament to consider disallowance of those regulations before the election. We have a very big gap between parliament sitting usually at the end of November and our election in the second half of March. That is a significant period of time without parliamentary oversight in relation to the potential disallowance of regulations.

We have also seen this government in this term show that they are more than willing to reintroduce almost identical regulations the next day if their first set is disallowed. We have had this farcical situation in the other place where regulations have been disallowed and disallowed only to be then reintroduced in exactly the same manner by the government the very next day.

Because we are talking about voting, it might necessarily happen when parliament is not sitting. This gives the government typically two to three months to introduce regulations that will apply to the upcoming election, then the parliament will not sit again before the election or even consider a disallowance motion. If the government wants to allow more people with disability or overseas electors to access assisted voting then that is what the government should be proposing in this legislation, rather than putting it in regulations that would leave that decision up to the cabinet and the Attorney-General of the day to propose.

Finally, I will speak to some concerns that have been raised in relation to the counting of pre-poll votes before the closing of the polls. Knowing how many votes have gone to which candidate before the election day has the potential, if those counts are leaked, to have a real impact upon how electors vote. This is therefore, I think, a question we need to get more information from the government on as we consider this legislation.

The government claims the protections will be put in place via regulation to stop the vote count becoming public knowledge. The problem is that we have no detail once again of how that is going to operate in practice or what protections are going to be put in place. Once again, we just have to trust that the government is going to get it right and leave it in their hands, rather than this being proposed and enacted in legislation.

Of course, we on this side of the house are not sure that the government will get it right. The government has already made its fair share of mistakes. Again, the government can easily change the rules without an opportunity for them to be reviewed by parliament. The opposition would be much more comfortable if the government had set out protections in this bill so that we could see what protections are being proposed.

When the opposition was briefed on this bill, the Attorney's department could not outline what those protections would be and in subsequent communications only pointed to the safeguards New Zealand had in relation to early counting and pre-poll. Their one line explanation was, and I quote, 'In preparing regulations, regard will be had to the safeguards set out in the New Zealand legislation.'

That does not give a lot of confidence to this house that the government knows what they are proposing, nor that they can give assurances as to exactly what those protections will be before we are asked to give another blank cheque to the government to write their own rules, potentially without any parliamentary oversight before the election. We are being asked to accept the vibe that they are essentially going to look at New Zealand's model, except for the key safeguard that protections are set out in New Zealand's legislation. They are saying that they are going to look at New Zealand's model but in New Zealand they are legislated. Here it is just going to be regulated and it is going to be up to the Attorney-General to consider.

There are other issues in relation to this bill where we need to seek further information, such as the Electoral Commissioner, who has the decision-making power for misleading information, being stripped of that power and it being given to SACAT. How is that going to work in practice? I think that is an important question. Why is SACAT the appropriate body to consider those matters? I think we need to get a proper explanation of that.

I have recently been subject to a SACAT matter for the first time. For two years I have been trying to get an FOI document from the Central Adelaide Local Health Network, and the Ombudsman has ruled that I should have it, but now CALHN and the government are taking me to SACAT to appeal the Ombudsman's ruling. It is an interesting process, and it has certainly opened my eyes to the fact that this is not a very fast process in relation to how some of these matters operate. It has been a couple of months so far and we are still at a directions hearing.

Mr Knoll: Welcome to opposition.

Mr PICTON: This is about SACAT. If you are dealing with an issue in terms of the electoral campaign, I imagine particularly with a misleading statement—no matter which side of parliament would be concerned by that—you would want a swift decision. How would the process work in relation to SACAT? Would it be dealt with in a timely way that would be appropriate for the election? Would it take months and months to get to a decision point or would it go on and on?

We have seen a recent decision by the Electoral Commissioner in relation to a piece of material that I believe was being distributed in the electorate of King by the government. I am not sure if it was the government or the member for King who authorised it. I think perhaps it was authorised by the Liberal Party and their director, Sascha Meldrum, but I stand to be corrected if that is incorrect. It basically suggested that the Leader of the Opposition had some secret plan to demolish entire suburbs—complete fantasy stuff.

The Electoral Commissioner has ruled that that was misleading information and the Liberal Party has now been forced to distribute information to households apologising for the misleading information that they provided to the community. That is an important thing that has happened where the Liberal Party have gone out of their way to mislead and frighten residents in the north-eastern suburbs about something that is completely wrong.

If this is now going to be taken from the Electoral Commissioner and given to SACAT, how long does that decision take to get made? Is it three months, four months, five months, six months or a year? If this happens three weeks before the election campaign, you would expect that there would be a need for very swift decision-making so that the information can be corrected and voters can be provided with accurate information before they had the opportunity to vote, particularly given that this bill is also seeking to expand early voting as well, which is even more reason why there would need to be quick decision-making.

I think we need to get an explanation as to what time frames would be involved in SACAT decision-making because certainly my very brief experience with it so far in relation to an FOI Ombudsman appeal is that it is taking a very long time indeed. I certainly would not want that to continue in relation to some of these important electoral matters as well.

There is also the matter of removing the function of the Electoral Commission to encourage people to vote on election day. It is strange that the government would be removing that function of legislation, which I would have thought would have been a noble thing to happen. I look forward to seeking further information as to why we would not want to encourage people to vote on election day. It usually takes place through advertisements online, on the television, in newspapers or in public notices to encourage people to vote and to tell people where their local voting booths are to make sure they come out and partake in that festival of democracy—democracy sausages as we now think of it. Why are we stripping that requirement from the Electoral Commissioner to undertake that role?

In conclusion, I would go back to where I started to say that this is a bill that is changing the rules very significantly right before we are about to have the election. I think parliament needs to consider very carefully whether or not we believe that this is appropriate timing a few months before the election. The Electoral Act's funding and disclosure requirements will have already started by the time this legislation would likely be passed and enacted, if it was to be. That process would already be underway and we would be only a few months away from when the writs would be issued and a few months away from the next election.

The government have had this information that they are apparently relying upon for over two years—almost 2½ years. They are acting on it right in the last quarter before the next election and they are significantly differing it from some of the recommendations from the Electoral Commissioner, particularly when it comes to the enrolment to vote, which is an absolutely crucial part of our electoral system. We should be making sure our franchise is universal. With those comments, the opposition will be opposing the bill. We look forward to further debate both here and in the other place, if it was to get there, and consideration of the detail of these issues, and questioning these particular clauses in the committee stage of the debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the member for MacKillop, I would just like to go back to a couple of points of order that were raised during the contribution from the member for Kaurna. In the first instance the Attorney-General raised a point of order regarding a vote in the other place. The Attorney's point of order was not unfounded. The standing orders in this place are a little bit vague on this. I am referring to standing order 120 which states:

A Member may not refer to any debate in the other House of Parliament or to any measure impending in that House.

I am going to take it that that means a debate in the recent past as well. Primarily, that is in place to avoid quarrels between the houses. It does not preclude reference being made to debates being undertaken some time ago. Even though I have not ruled on the point of order, it is not unfounded and I want all members to hear my view on that.

In relation to the member for Kaurna taking offence at the interjection from the member for Chaffey, I refer members to standing order 125, which states:

A Member may not use offensive or unbecoming words in reference to another Member. Subject to Standing Order 137, if the Member referred to takes objection to what he/she considers to be offensive or unbecoming words, the Speaker requests the Member uttering the words to withdraw them.

Member for Kaurna, you raised that immediately in accordance with standing order 126, so I am going to revisit that and, regardless of what was said, the member for Kaurna took offence at that. I am not wanting to encourage precious behaviour in this place because there is general argy-bargy in the day-to-day operations. However, given that the member for Kaurna did take offence at whatever was said by the member for Chaffey, I am going to ask the member for Chaffey again to withdraw and apologise in accordance with the standing orders—regardless of what was said.

Mr WHETSTONE: I withdraw, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And apologise, please—withdraw and apologise and then we will move on.

Mr WHETSTONE: I withdraw and apologise. Sir, just to—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that is enough. Thank you. Member for MacKillop.

Mr Whetstone: You can't give as good as you get, can you?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Chaffey, you are called to order. In fact, you are warned.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave it at that, member for Chaffey, otherwise you will be removed.

Mr McBRIDE (MacKillop) (12:48): It gives me great pleasure to stand and support the Electoral (Electronic Documents and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2021. I have 20 minutes, right up until lunch, to put some positive notes and influence to what is being proposed here, other than what we have just heard over the last three-quarters of an hour.

This whole proposal and movement are to bring the electoral process into the modern 21^st century. I will take us back—and I am sure others will remember—to when I was a young lad and elections were quite an exciting time for little tiny places like Reedy Creek and Mount Benson where there were electoral polling booths. The local communities would get together and sometimes have barbecues where all the gossip of the district was heard by people getting together around these little halls, and the election was on for young and old.

Those times and those tiny little places have gone by the wayside. Most of them are derelict and lucky to still have an audience for maybe the odd Christmas function, and the election systems are now a different proposition with the new modern technology that is out there. I think the new bill is bringing us forward along those lines.

The whole process is obviously to improve the administration and to streamline and modernise the processes of an election. It is also hopefully going to be more consistent with the options in other jurisdictions around Australia, and hopefully that will happen for South Australia, and meet also the community expectations.

One of the things that I have seen in my short term in this place is the fact that these pre-polling booths are getting more and more popular with the busy way of life we see today. Some of these polling booths around the country are taking 20 to 30 per cent, maybe heading towards 50 per cent, of all the votes for the election day prior to the election day.

I think it really is important that these votes cast in the early polling booths are able to be counted on the night; otherwise, I think that the election day votes will not give us the direction and the result that I think most Australians would be looking for and particularly South Australians. I think what is being rolled out here absolutely highlights that. It will be for the better for everyone, and I am sure that voters will pick this up and probably over time will take more of an opportunity to do the pre-polling.

I will give you another incident down in our region. Our state election falls very close to a major event in the centre of the Limestone Coast called the Lucindale field days. Between 20,000 and 25,000 people attend on a Friday and Saturday, heading towards 40,000 and 50,000 people. A Saturday state election during that process can be really, really tough for those who want to get to the field day as well as vote. I know once this was all put together for the first time on one of the elections and it caused mayhem for that little town of Lucindale. Not only holding the Lucindale field days, as they do, but trying to take the votes through the Lucindale school at the same time caused massive queues and delays.

Now we see a lot of people saying, 'Rightio, I want that election day free, I've got busy things on, my life is busy and I want to vote early.' They can vote up to 12 days earlier at pre-polling booths. I think that is one of these marvels that hopefully this process picks up and supports.

I am sorry I am not going to be able to see the Hansard from the member for Kaurna's speech, but I just want to take up some of the points that he raised and the way that he has portrayed it as quite negative. He might have concerns. I get that. He is allowed to have concerns, because on this side, we are in government; he is in opposition. He might be wary about where we are going and how we are rolling out these types of processes. Let me tell you, this government—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting, and they certainly will cease interjecting from out of their seat.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: He is not in his seat. Members on my right will cease interjecting. The member for MacKillop has the call, and he is entitled to be heard in silence.

Mr McBRIDE: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your protection. In regard to this process and the concerns raised by the member for Kaurna, he talks about the delays of why the Attorney-General has taken so long to act on this. He does not talk about it being one or two years; he actually expresses it in 800 days and more, which just exacerbates the argument he is trying to pretend, that his side in government would be a whole lot more effective and efficient than we are. I question whether that would be the case.

The second point I want to raise is about the fairness clause. He talks about these sorts of processes being made late in the day towards our 2022 election in March. How late do you have to go when you remove the fairness clause in November 2017?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hammond is called to order.

Mr McBRIDE: That was very, very late in the day in changing the electoral process.

Mr Picton interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Kaurna is called to order. He will cease interjecting, particularly from outside of his seat.

Mr McBRIDE: In fact, it was so late in the process there was no chance for the opposition even to do anything about it. I really highlight this because, when there has been a bad process in place, sometimes we become ingrained and entrenched. He mentions forming government with a minority vote. In other words, in 2010 the opposition won 52 per cent of the vote and were not able to form government, and in 2014 they won 51 per cent but were not able to form government and then in 2018 we won 50 to 51 per cent and were able to form government because of a fairness clause. The Labor Party then comes out to criticise that process. It really does make one wonder how and why they think that is good representation of the voters of South Australia.

We know South Australia has a very close margin in terms of forming government. We are a community of nearly equal division, so an election can be about the mood of the day. There are no major election outcomes—unless you have a State Bank debacle; that will change things for you. But generally the votes in this state are very close. The member for Kaurna criticised the process of the fairness clause and was part of the party that unravelled it. That is quite undue. To bring it and then say that the process is a problem is quite unfair.

Another thing the member talks about is other jurisdictions, and he is fair. He talks about the United States as an issue and as having issues. I agree, but they do not have compulsory voting. We must allow, and should always allow, every South Australian to be able to participate in the election process, no matter how that is. I am seeing in detail here that electronic voting—or phone voting, as has been pointed out—can take place. Knowing that people are in particularly remote areas, in hospitals and in aged care, voting has always been a difficult process. I hope that, with this sort of move and this bill that I am supporting, those processes are not lost but enhanced and made better for all South Australians.

The other issue that I have here in my notes but which was also picked up by the member for Kaurna is the South Australians who are interstate at the moment or maybe even overseas. Again, I am hoping that, through this electronic process and through the phone polling process, that it is made easier for South Australians to participate in the election. I would have thought that, if the Labor Party saw a process that made it easier to put a vote in and have a faster outcome that gave an outcome and a decision on election day, they would have been supportive of that process.

However, in the last two or three elections Labor formed a government with a lower majority of election vote outcomes. If you think that process is better and you would like to return to those old days, then maybe that is why you have the greatest problem with what is being advocated here today.

There is much talk about the election process for those who may be in Indigenous communities—and I will talk mainly about my regional areas. I know that election day and pooling resources for pre-polling can be quite difficult. I know that, prior to the 2018 election, trying to man pre-polling booths could be quite arduous. There are no huge streams of electors coming in all at once; they usually generally trickle in over the full course of the day that the pre-polling booth is open. I do know and did see that the community and the constituents, of all seats I would have thought, appreciated the pre-polling process. I think that that process is not only going to be rolled on for many more elections taking place in the future but that the participation rate is going to increase.

I think this bill should and will pick up the fact that pre-polling booths are going to become more important. The fact that we were not able to capture those votes on election day as well as we could have for an election outcome was a concern earlier, and I think that addresses this.

We have compulsory voting in this state, and we are seeing, in and amongst our community, that not everyone is captured by the political process. Back in my earlier days, working in Port Adelaide, I saw that at least 20 per cent or maybe 50 per cent of the population was not engaged in the news, the headlines and the political talk of the day. I think everything we can do to promote, to make it easier, to highlight that we have a state election on and that they can participate at a time that suits South Australian constituents will be a real positive for our state. I welcome this bill, I support it, and I wish it wholehearted support throughout this place.

Mr BROWN (Playford) (12:59): I rise to speak on this bill. As the member for Kaurna has so eloquently pointed out earlier, the opposition has a number of concerns about this piece of legislation. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from13:00 to 14:00