Electoral (Electronic Documents and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (16:29): Before lunch, when I started to speak on this matter, I ended up talking about the importance of making the rules very simple to ensure that everybody in our community who was eligible to vote has a capacity to vote on election day. I then talked about the importance of new citizens being able to vote on election day.

As I said—and I am sure there is quite a bit of evidence to support this—if we are trying to assist new citizens in this country, as I was once myself, to participate in the political process, we need to make sure we make it as easy as possible for them to do that as it is for other people. I think that any new law that would have the effect or impact to preclude them from participating in that process would be a retrograde step.

In terms of the young people I alluded to earlier, certainly my experience has been that young people are interested in our democratic process and that they are also interested in a whole range of issues. Some of the issues young people raised with me through my Youth Advisory Panel I am sure they would like to take to an election and to also participate in that election. For example, my young people have a strong interest in sustainability.

In fact, tomorrow I will be going to one of my local schools and undertaking a tour of a whole range of sustainability initiatives undertaken by young people at the school. Another school is visiting to learn from them, so young people are not only talking about things but they are actually doing things in our community. It is an important political issue and one issue that my party has quite different policies from those of the government, particularly at the federal level. I think that the young people in our community should have a right to voice their opinion and also right to voice their vote on these issues.

Young people are particularly concerned, like other members of our community, about mental health, particularly the mental health of young people and the impact of COVID on their lives, but there is also an increasing sense of powerlessness in our young people. They feel they have less capacity to influence the things that happen to their lives. COVID is one example, but there are a whole range of events that happen in our society.

I will come to a couple of other issues that are impacting my particular community, such as increasing pressures on them to achieve at school and the importance of getting a good ATAR, to get a good university education, to get a good job, etc. While there are an increasing number of pathways to get to university, there is certainly pressure on young people to achieve that.

One of the things that has come up in my Youth Advisory Panel when they talk about this issue is the provision of mental health services, and that is certainly a view of young people in my community. It is important to have the capacity and the ability to make judgements on election day about this because it does impact them—that is, there are insufficient services being delivered to young people or available to young people for mental health issues.

Dr Naomi Rutten, a local GP who specialises in mental health—in fact, her practice is now a mental health practice—cannot take new people on her books for about six months, and this is at the primary care level. The waitlist is endless. This is one of the issues that young people would like to ensure they have an opportunity to express their view about. More so than my generation, young people place greater weight on respectful relationships, not only between genders but between people of other cultural backgrounds, sexuality, etc. They have a much greater understanding and a greater acceptance of people from a whole range of different backgrounds, and relationships between people have to be much more respectful.

We have had some recent examples of some rather disrespectful language, which has been made public. Young people actually do value that and they want to see laws change and policies change, and for that to happen they have to be able to vote. I think they should have the right to vote, and any law that takes away that right by the way it impacts on them is wrong.

Climate change is another major issue that young people raise with me. They certainly do not support the current lack of policies at the federal level in relation to climate change and they would like an opportunity at both the state and federal levels to have their say on that. The cost of further education is another issue they raise with me and how this generation is burdened with a debt once they leave university, unlike previous generations. That is certainly having a negative impact on their forming their own households and investing in a new home, etc., because this debt is an enormous burden on them.

In my electorate, they have a particular interest in public transport. At the moment, the lack of trains is causing a huge problem for students in my area, not only for those who are trying to get to study but also for those who study and do some part-time work to support their education and living. The lack of good substitute services is causing quite a few difficulties for young people, amongst others. Recently, when I was at one of the bus stops people waiting told me they were concerned about the length of time the bus takes. If you are able to get one of the express services, that is fine but, if you are not, it can take up to an hour and 40 minutes to get to the city and back. If you go somewhere else for work, it takes even longer.

One of the other issues which has been raised with me by young people and which I am sure they would have a strong view on and would want to vote on on election day—and I think this is probably one of the reasons this government are trying to make sure as few young people as possible are able to vote on election day—is all the various cuts the government have made to TAFE that are impacting directly on our young people and their families.

In my electorate, the government have closed down courses available to local young people and moved them to the southern side of the city. People say, so what? Well, for a lot of people who perhaps do not have a car of their own and need to use public transport, etc., it makes it very difficult to access TAFE, particularly at a time when we are trying to ensure that young people enter vocational training because of a lack of skills, which has been foreshadowed.

Not only has this government closed down programs in my area but it has also moved some of the programs online, which are then run by interstate companies, making it more expensive as well. This government's lack of commitment to public vocational education that is accessible and available to all, is an issue young people hold dear, as do their families, because the increasing costs and the increasing cost of transport, etc., are often borne by the families. That is an issue I believe they should have a right to express their view about on election day.

When you look at these issues and the views of young people, in some ways it makes sense that this government is trying to make sure they do not vote because they are certainly not going to get these young people's votes. They are not going to get the votes of those people who wait hours for an ambulance. They are certainly not going to get any in my town, where we only have one ambulance service and where people do not feel safe because of the lack of health services.

These people want to vote and want to have a say in the election. What the government is doing here is trying to make sure it removes those people from the roll in an indirect way, preventing them from having their say on election day. If that was not enough, for the last year and a half our society has been turned upside down by COVID-19. It has disrupted all our lives. It has hurt some of our lives. I am one of the fortunate ones in terms of impact on me, but there are lot of other people who have been greatly impacted by COVID-19, particularly a lot of older people in my community who are living in greater isolation.

One would think that with so much change and impact from COVID, the government would be putting its attention towards addressing those issues. Also, if this Premier believes he is doing as well as he thinks he is, then why is he trying to reduce people's capacity to vote? If he is doing a really great job, he should be saying, 'We will make enrolment as easy as possible because I am going to win as big as I can.'

I think this is really an admission that this government wants to actually get off the enrolment books as many people as possible because they are not confident, because they have not done a good job. Certainly, the commissioner and Professor Spurrier have done a good job leading this state—that has been quite clear—but when you look at other things the government has not done that. Very quickly, I would like to discuss the issue of print media. This is just another nail in the coffin of regional papers by this government.

Time expired.

Mr MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Leader of the Opposition) (16:41): I appreciate the opportunity to address the Electoral (Electronic Documents and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2021 because, as I think many of my colleagues have said throughout the course of this debate, this is an important bill because it goes to the very heart of how we contemplate our democracy, particularly in the context of the very specific issue of voting, which of course is the essential tenet of how democracy operates.

Throughout the course of the last 10 days, we have had one of those moments which has captivated the attention of the world and which we have not seen for probably a few years in a geopolitical context. What I am talking about is the events in Afghanistan recently. All those images we have seen on TV of desperate people queueing up at the airport, trying to get themselves on a plane out of their country, presumably to go to a free, democratic land anywhere they can get their hands on, I think are a demonstration of that permanent human yearning to be able to chart the course of your own destiny, to be able to have a legitimate say on what the society that you live in and that of the children you raise looks like.

For me, at least, it has just been a startling reminder of just how lucky we are here in Australia that all our citizens, most of whom were born here—myself included, obviously—take for granted that democratic ideal. We take for granted that every three or four years we get to roll up to the ballot box and cast our vote with absolute confidence in the electoral system, having absolute confidence that the will of the people will prevail on election day, win, lose or otherwise, and that we live in a place that allows that to perpetuate almost in a way we take for granted.

That is why I think all of us who are given the privilege to be elected to this place do everything we possibly can to allow those principles to manifest themselves in electoral bills that do not just preserve our democracy but enhance it, that do not just ensure its survival but, more importantly, ensure that it thrives.

The thing about democracy, as everybody knows, is that really it is in its absolute infancy. We come together in a room like this one which we think is ornate and maybe even old but in actual fact in the context of human history, we are an absolute blip on the radar. Human civilisation has been organising itself for tens of thousands of years but, despite that long history, democracy with universal franchise has only existed ever since our state's leadership on the issue for just over 100 years. It is nothing.

Over the course of that bit over 100 years, or for as long as democracy has existed, what we have seen is a constant evolution in terms of how people vote, where people vote, who gets to vote when they vote and what they are voting for. That has all evolved. So it would be utterly naive of us to assume that the model that we have right now is perfect and not worthy of change. It clearly is. In fact, we have an obligation to make sure we make changes, but when we do that it has to be about empowerment, it has to be about enfranchisement, it has to be about strengthening democracy at a time that quite frankly is under threat.

I do not think this bill meets those objectives. There are elements of the bill that are absolutely meritorious but there are elements of the bill that are not because they are contrary to the very principles that we should be standing up and fighting for. There has been growing social research coming out of democracies around the West, particularly in the United States, about how a growing cohort of people are becoming increasingly cynical towards politics and politicians—vis-à-vis increasing numbers are becoming cynical towards democracy itself.

I was stunned a couple of years ago when someone showed me a paper that had come out of the US amongst students from universities that showed the dramatic increase in the number of people who thought democracy was failing and that potentially a one-party state would be a better way for a society to govern itself. This is in the United States of America. This is in the country where, culturally, liberty and democracy are ingrained into children from the moment they are born—far more so than here. Yet over there, what we have seen is a rather rapid decline in people's perceptions of the effectiveness of democracy and its connectedness to the people's will.

At the very time we see democracy under threat—and, of course, I would point to extraordinary political outcomes, particularly in the pre-COVID era, when we saw shocking, stunning electoral outcomes on both the far left and on the far right, whether it be Trump, whether it be the Corbynistas, whether it be the Five Star Movement in Italy, whether it be the rise of Le Pen, whether it be the stunning election of Macron, even here in Australia having five prime ministers in five years—all these shocking, startling electoral results tend to be a manifestation of people's frustration towards democracy.

At the very time all this is under threat, we now have a bill here that I do not think enhances people's confidence in democracy but, rather, diminishes it. That is why I will not vote for it. That is why my team is opposed to it. Allow me to give you an illustration of the examples which I know have been well traversed during the course of this debate.

Regarding the issue about enrolment to vote, having received an independent report from the Electoral Commission, in whom our party and I have great confidence and faith, they made it crystal clear that there should be a change to the Electoral Act to amend it to 'enable eligible electors to enrol up to and on polling day'. Why would we not do that? Who are we worried about here? What would we possibly be worried about with an eligible voter rolling up and enrolling on election day?

The member for Colton might not like people voting, and the member for Newland might not like people voting, the member for Finniss might not like people voting, but I personally like the idea that if a constituent in my seat of Croydon decides that they had better catch up with their enrolment—because they have moved address or they have just reached 18 years of age or they have just recently become a citizen—they are able to enrol straightaway. Why shouldn't they?

How they vote is up to them. They might choose not to vote for me; they might vote for another candidate. I am nonplussed about that, it is up to them—or I am plussed about it, I would prefer they did vote Labor but it is their democratic right not do that—but why wouldn't we allow more people to enrol? Why aren't we making it easier for younger people to enrol?

Why are we ignoring the Electoral Commission saying to allow people to enrol up to election day? It might furnish a brand spanking new Australian who has finally, after years of going through a process to become an Australian citizen—they might be a former temporary protection visa holder who has come from a country like Afghanistan—have realised their ambition to become a citizen, to be able to call Australia home. Why should that person not be able to roll up on election day, enrol and then be able to cast their ballot, which I know they are excited to do.

As much as 49 per cent of my electorate or thereabouts are people who have English as a second language. I recall, on state election day in March 2018, spending the day at the Woodville Gardens booth in my electorate, my community, and being truly aghast at the length of the line before the polling booth opened at eight o'clock in the morning. The line was going around the block, and when I looked at that line I saw a representation of a very diverse community.

I remember talking to people who were casting their ballot for the very first time and seeing their genuine enthusiasm for what they were about to do. We should be making that available to every last person who is an Australian citizen who is recently enrolled—except that this bill has very deliberately and thoughtfully left that principle behind, despite the recommendation from the Electoral Commission themselves.

Why? There can be only one reason, and it is that the conservative side of politics—and we know they have an extraordinary track record for this—are not interested in making it easier for people to vote. They are only interested in making it harder for people to vote: people with immigrant backgrounds, young people. They do not want to see enfranchisement; they are interested in disenfranchisement.

This is a practice we have seen growing—only on the conservative side of politics—throughout the world. We are witnessing this debate very much consume American politics at the moment, where we are seeing arguments against thoughtful policy like independent boundary commissions, late enrolments, enrolment drives, all aimed at preserving democracy into the future, being rallied against from the conservative side of politics.

I pose this question to the Acting Speaker and those in the chamber: why did the government ignore this? It was within their means to take a principled stance and encourage more people to be able to vote on election day.

I want to assure this house that as the leader of the alternative government I take very seriously the responsibility I have as an MP, and also as the Leader of the Opposition, to make sure that electoral reform is pursued into the future—not just electoral reform but other reforms as well, that are all about improving the integrity of our democracy, the accessibility of our democracy, the transparency of our democracy, so that we can see a growing degree of confidence within our electoral system.

There is also the question of assisted voting. This is one of the elements of this bill that I think has a great degree of merit—except of course, in a way, I think there is a degree of cynicism from the Attorney-General. There is an extraordinary degree of lack of detail, assuredness and specificity regarding exactly who will be able to get access to this new system.

We think that there are very noble ambitions associated with giving people with a disability, or issues around access, the ability to cast a vote through alternate means, but it strikes me that the bill seems to be focussed on sight-impaired electors rather than going to different other groups. I understand that the bill provides for regulation to be prescribed by the Attorney-General for any class of elector, but then where does that stop? How do we know where this Attorney-General—particularly this Attorney-General—or for that matter a future attorney-general will start drawing a line about who can and cannot get access to this.

I think that one of the most critical elements of having confidence in the electoral system comes down to a genuine sense of independence around the decisions that are being made. I made reference earlier that on this side of the house we do have confidence in the Electoral Commissioner. I have great faith in our electoral commissioners around the country as being genuinely independent, but we cannot have a situation where the Attorney-General of the day can ram through a regulation that arbitrarily fundamentally alters the way people cast their ballots or who casts their ballots in certain formats.

That does not speak to transparency or assuredness or the ability for people to have confidence that we will not have decisions being made by the Attorney-General of the day that are consistent with their own political interests as distinct from the interests of our democracy more broadly.

The cynical approach in which the government has sought to pursue this bill also raises questions about the integrity of the process. Why is it that the Attorney-General has waited until—how many sitting days do we have left—approximately 15 sitting days before the next election to try to ram this bill through?

She has been sitting on these recommendations for more than 800 days. For more than 800 days she has had the opportunity to try to put up a version of the bill that facilitates more people to be able to vote, but persistently what we see from the Attorney-General is a willingness to completely ignore the recommendations of the Electoral Commission on getting people to enrol to vote.

The rate of enrolment amongst young voters, as the Attorney-General should know, is declining. The rate of young people enrolling is declining. In fact, 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. I repeat: 38.9 per cent of 18 year olds eligible to vote did not enrol, and this Attorney-General says, ‘Yippee!’ This Attorney-General says, 'That is something worth preserving.' That is why she has not accepted the recommendation of the Electoral Commissioner to allow people to roll up and vote on election day.

What is wrong with making it easier for young people to vote? I simply pose that question. I mentioned before the value of having people who have recently become Australian citizens voting, but what is this government's problem with trying to improve the shocking rate of 38.9 per cent of young people not enrolled to vote at the election? This is all because they think it is in their political interests.

As the member for Light I think adeptly pointed out, what government seeks to make it harder for people to vote? Only a government ashamed of their record, only a government that is clinging on to other people making decisions for them, namely, people like the police commissioner, who has essentially been in charge of the state for as long as the Premier has and who has an exemplary record. They are clinging on to a hope that maybe a situation around the pandemic will suit their purposes electorally.

It is not a policy vision for the future of the state. It is not a willingness to stand by their record or policy delivery, which of course is patently appalling, whether it be broken promises around privatisation, infrastructure pipedreams that never came to fruition or broken promises on better services for the people of South Australia. It is an extraordinary record of saying, 'We are decreasing taxes,' on one hand but in actual fact increasing taxes and coming up with whole, brand-new taxes, like an electric vehicle tax on the other.

If this government were sincere about its policy record, if this government actually had a policy vision for the future of the state, they would be actively encouraging every young person they could get their hands on to enrol. The member for Newland would be running around the Tea Tree Plaza shopping centre saying to young people who shop, go to the movies and work there, 'Yes, I believe that you should have to pay for your parking. Yes, I believe that the company that owns this shopping centre should be able to put in boom gates, and I'm proud to stand by that record and let you cast your vote at the ballot box accordingly.'

But, no, the member for Newland does not want the electors in his electorate to know that he thinks paid parking is something that they should be able to pursue. He does not want them to be able to go to the ballot box and enrol to vote on the day and say, 'I'm a young person, I'm a young worker at Tea Tree Plaza shopping centre and I want to let Richard Harvey know that I don't like that paid parking that is going to come my way because of the member for Newland's inaction in policy.'

If we are willing to stand by our record, if we are willing as parliamentarians to allow people to cast their judgement on our performance over the course of the preceding four years, then we would be encouraging them to vote and we would make it easier for them to enrol to vote so they can have a say at the next election. This parliament has a duty and an obligation to uphold South Australia's proud and long history of progressing democracy, making it easier for people to participate, trying to enfranchise people, not disenfranchise them. Unfortunately, this bill ignores that precedent. This bill ignores that principle, which is why it should be opposed and why I will be opposing it.

Mr SZAKACS (Cheltenham) (17:01): I rise with others on this side of the house to oppose this bill. It is quite astounding in the current circumstances that we do so. We speak quite regularly in this chamber about the rise of undemocratic and antidemocratic movements right across the globe, about regimes that once prided themselves on being pillars of democracy slowly, slowly creeping further and further into what is becoming a new catchphrase, that is, 'liberal democracies'.

It is quite a displeasure that I need to stand here with my colleagues from the Labor opposition to oppose many measures in this bill. Of the particular measures that have been just put by the Leader of the Opposition I will reflect on two in particular: the reduced franchise of voters and the attempts in this bill, through changes, to inhibit the ability of young and first-time voters to enrol and then subsequently exercise their democratic right to vote. If the right to vote is not the most central tenet of our democracy, then I challenge anyone in this place to say what is. I have not heard any contributions from any member on either side that challenge that assertion.

We are a state and nation with an incredibly short history from the time of European occupation. However, within that time, we have seen a dramatic and profound series of changes and roundabouts in our democracy and our ability to truly enfranchise all to vote. We have seen massive changes in the rights of Aboriginal people not only to vote but also to be recognised as citizens of this country. We have seen changes and, as we have heard so often in this place, led women's franchise and the suffragette movement that was spawned by South Australia. It has changed, but it came from a system where, once upon a time, it was landowners and the aristocracy who ruled the roost in this place. Well, thank God we have come a long way from that despite cynical attempts in this bill.

Looking at this bill, it would be reasonable for some—not me—to mount an argument that they, and some on the other side, would be fawning over a return to those dark old days of massively reduced franchise and massively reduced voting rights for the citizens of South Australia, where they can effectively count on the top hat brigade and Adelaide Club elites to rule the roost of this state.

It would be a very reasonable argument that could be put with some reflection on this bill. It is that type of condescending, patriarchal view that some on the other side would have, should this argument be mounted—that they are born to rule, that they know best, that it is their right and their privilege to rule. Unfortunately, little in this bill goes to dissuading someone seeking to make that argument.

Many of us in this chamber, from both sides of politics, often and regularly attend citizenship ceremonies, where we reflect on the many rights and privileges that Australian citizenship brings. We have heard the member for Colton on a number of occasions reflect on voting being the greatest privilege and the greatest right that new citizenship brings. I do look forward to the change to the member for Colton and others from the other side in their platitudes at these citizenship ceremonies because the greatest right and privilege of citizenship, which is to vote and the right to vote, now come with a massive disclaimer: it is the greatest right and the greatest privilege—on our terms. Not if you are young, not if you are from a CALD background and certainly not if you are from a lower socio-economic background.

But, rest assured, if those on the other side do not change their platitudes at these ceremonies, I know that those of us on this side are more than happy and willing, and will fill in the citizens of this state about what is changing and why it is changing.

There are literally people being evacuated from Kabul as we speak. It was an enormous sign of solidarity for this parliament to be illuminated last night in the colours of the Afghan flag. People are literally putting their lives on the line and are willing to sacrifice their lives because of their commitment to democratic ideals and democracy itself. The ideals of a single unitary value of voting and what that means in their commitment to fight, to revolt, to flee and to ultimately seek safety in this country.

A large portion of these people have settled in the western suburbs, in my electorate of Cheltenham. As I have spoken of before, almost 40 per cent of people who reside in Cheltenham were born overseas—people like the Vietnamese boat people who fled Vietnam after the fall of Saigon, who were welcomed with such compassion, first by Malcolm Fraser and then by successive governments thereafter, and the White Russians, whose journey fleeing oppression in Russia took them through Russia to China and then eventually Queenstown in pursuit of that democracy. As a sidenote, that settling in Queenstown means that Queenstown has the highest portion of Russian speakers of any suburb in this state, and quite a few Russian churches to boot.

The West is home to generations of brave and courageous immigrants who fought for democracy, fought for freedom and fought for simple things like the right to vote—the Greeks and those from former Yugoslavia, from Myanmar, from Hong Kong more recently, from east and west Africa, and even my father from Hungary. This bill, and proposed changes being sought by the government, flies in the face of this ideal, and it is enormous disrespect to the values these people have fought for and found in Australia.

Recently, as part of Refugee Week I spent some time at Woodville High School with their students of a refugee or CALD background. I was lucky enough to witness the creation of a poem. It was under the guidance of the incredible and talented, principled activist and slam poet Manal Younus.

At the heart of this workshop, amongst these young students of Woodville High School, was a strong sense of journey and a strong sense of what it means for the rights and privileges of these younger people and their families. To me, it was clear that unlike some of us in this place, me included, who at times do not value the finely balanced nuance of democracy, they certainly did not underestimate it and they certainly do not underestimate it.

One of the quite profound reflections in this poem, which I would be very pleased and honoured to read to the house now, encapsulates some of that commitment to and strong sense of their place and purpose in our democracy. The poem reads:

We are students, we are daughters and older brothers.

We are athletes, aspiring doctors, mechanics, artists and teachers.

We are gamers, we are dreamers and much more.

We are the people of Woodville High School.

It is a privilege that I was able to spend some time with those students just a couple of weeks ago in bringing that together.

My reflections to those students would be: what would the proponents of this bill proffer in respect of their argument in favour of change? What will those in the Marshall government say to first-time voters and high school students when they find out that their ability to enrol, once the writs are issued, has been reduced by some 300 per cent, by some two-thirds of the time? What will they say? What will the arguments be in favour, and will they even bother?

If they do not bother to try to mount the argument as to why these young people should have less time and should have fewer rights to enrol to vote and exercise a vote, it shows simply they do not care about the young people who are being affected by this, and it is being done for cynical reasons. It is not only a retrograde step and measure in itself but it is also a massive departure from the recommendation of the Electoral Commissioner himself and his recommendations to allow enrolment right up to and including election day.

We just heard from the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Enfield about some of their own reflections on that report, but it is telling that after such a significant amount of time between the report being tabled and provided to the Attorney and this bill being debated today that there has been a huge departure from the recommendations themselves. The recommendation from the Electoral Commissioner in respect of enrolment up to and on polling day could not be any clearer. In fact, it could not be any more important because it is recommendation 1 of his report. The Commissioner himself says:

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.

He goes on to say:

One of the solutions is to address falling participation rates successfully implemented by ECSA's counterparts in both New South Wales (NSW), New Zealand (NZ), Queensland and Victoria (as well as most Canadian jurisdictions)—

Of course, a commonwealth country of note—

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 missed the close of rolls.

That is the key phrase here: 'to enfranchise'. We should be debating in the year 2021 new and innovative ways that we can ensure that more people have the right to vote, that more people can easily access voting, not fewer. The fact that we on this side of the chamber have, contribution after contribution, talked about the reduction of franchise—the reduced capacity to enrol to vote—should be a significant concern to all. It certainly is to me.

Not only has the Electoral Commissioner made these recommendations but there has been quite a considerable reflection and piece of work undertaken by the Commissioner for Children and Young People, much to her credit. She has taken steps to engage and hear directly from young people who will be affected by this bill and these proposed changes by the Marshall government. It is certainly not something that is consultation and engagement that you would accuse the government of doing in this respect.

I want to thank the commissioner, Helen Connolly, for her work. I have known and worked professionally with Helen Connolly for many years, back to my time as the secretary of SA Unions, and the commissioner's commitment to engaging and amplifying the voices of young people and also the disenfranchised and the marginalised is something that deserves great respect and my commendation in this house. The Commissioner for Children and Young People notes:

We know that over one third of eligible 18 year olds (38.9%) and one quarter of eligible 18 to 24 year olds (25.4%) were not on the electoral roll at the time of the 2018 state election. Participation was also lowest among this age group, with only 76% of enrolled 18-24 year olds casting a vote, and younger voters reported the lowest levels of confidence about completing their ballot papers.

The consequences of a growing lack of trust when combined with a growing lack of civics proficiency is worrying for the future of our democracy and the ideals and values it represents.

That is a stark reflection, when we look at the two major proposals in this bill. Of course, there is the reduction in time provided to first-time voters, or any person for that matter, to enrol to vote once the writs are issued, and also a significant winding back on the ability for the commissioner to promote voting on the day.

As someone who was elected in a special by-election, I know that the literacy of many voters at the best of times is limited, and certainly in a by-election we see a significant dip in the way people both engage and turn out to vote, so it is not a great secret to say that a significant part of my by-election campaign was speaking to voters about the fact that an election was on. That was the first hurdle.

As the opposition leader said, every single person in my electorate that we can engage and encourage to participate in civics and democracy is a good thing. We are not afraid of voters. In fact, we on the Labor side and in the labour movement embrace the ability to seek to persuade a voter because with that we get to talk about our values. We get to talk about what we stand for. We get to talk about what the future looks like, rather than the fact that we want to stick to where we are and, as I reflected on, turn back the clock to days of old when it comes to voting franchise. That is not who we are and we embrace the ability and the opportunity to engage with young people and first-time voters on any issue.

But I must say that the ability and the tenacity and the commitment that those of us on our side will be telling the tale of the Attorney's treachery on this will be loud and amplified and not limited to our existing areas. I also note, as time starts to conclude, that my opposition colleagues have already reflected on this: the perplexing gap, time and interlude between the government receiving the report of the Electoral Commissioner into the 2018 South Australian election and the introduction of this bill into parliament with, I think, some 15 days of sitting left in this session before we head off to the 2022 state election, which we cannot bring on fast enough, if you ask me.

What has caused this delay? It is a reasonable question to ask. We might get some answers in the committee stage, but what has caused this delay? What on earth has been the contrary legislative agenda from the Attorney and the Premier? We know from the Premier not much. The Attorney does carry a heavy load and certainly does the lion's share of the lifting for her Premier. But what has the cabinet been up to? What has delayed this decision?

In fairness, I thought I would reflect on this because I did not want to be too unfair on the Attorney, who does have a significant load. Some of the things that might explain why this has been delayed, why we have had a couple of years between drinks, could be the scandals that have plagued this government. That could slow things down. Criminal charges, travel rorts and mass resignation of ministers could have contributed to the slowdown. It could be ICAC probes. It could be findings of misconduct against ministers of the Crown. It could be bullying and harassment investigations that have taken the attention of the Premier, or maybe it could be more personal issues for the Attorney, things like Henry Keogh and the payment that she made to Henry Keogh and, of course, dodging the public backlash around that.

It can certainly be said that you can always back the self-interest horse. The self-interest horse of this government is bolting down the back straight and they are being chased, despite the whipping of the Attorney and the whipping of the Premier, by the scandals, by the ICAC investigations and by the pork barrelling, No matter how hard they whip this horse, no matter how hard they protest, this is cynical and this is cooked up against those people who do not tend to vote Liberal, who do not tend to vote conservative and it will not be forgotten by those people.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (17:22): In the absence of there being any other speakers, I would firstly like to thank all members for their contributions during the second reading stage and I look forward to the discussion of a number of matters that have been raised during the debate in committee. I note foreshadowed amendments from the opposition, which largely cover the question of the availability of enrolment up to 6pm on polling day, use of the SACAT for resolution of matters in dispute and pre-poll issues or the length of the period of pre-poll as I have categorised those three areas of proposed amendment. I will briefly address those during the course of the response.

The first thing I need to do is inform the house that there has been, I think, a complete red herring raised in this debate. I need to say this because I think every speaker without exception was obviously singing from the same hymn sheet in the instructions they were given and there has been a perpetuation of the error of this through the debates. Some of it, I think, is not actually their fault. Let me start with the first item.

Members would be aware that the vast majority of amendments presented in this bill are actually recommendations from the Electoral Commissioner. Can I say in opening, given the statements made about excluding the young and inaccessibility of voters—and I will come to the red herring aspect of that shortly—I just want to assure the house that given the recommendation of Mr Mick Sherry, our Electoral Commissioner, in the time I have known him and worked with him on the development and passage of legislation, I have not seen him as anything like Donald Trump.

I actually have seen him as quite different from that. Because this is his recommendation, I need to explain it so there is not a misunderstanding, which I think the opposition have taken and sort of raced with as though this is their knock-out submission. As I say, some of it is not necessarily their fault.

I want to come firstly to the question of information that is being relied on from the report, and in particular the repetition in support of one of the arguments raised of the 25,000 enrolments. I will find the exact number here; I think it is 25,000. I will just get the actual report. Members on the opposition have referred to paragraph 14, and he says at point 5:

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 issue of the 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.

It may have escaped—and even had for me, initially—the attention of members, but the commissioner had also published a press release in relation to a number of matters, including the record number of electors in 2018, on 26 February 2018. He outlined, in that press release where the reference to the numbers of voters, in particular the enrolment activity, that, 'Enrolment activity over the last month before roll closed saw almost 25,000 electors enrolled or updated.' I just bring to the members' attention, I have asked the Electoral Commissioner to confirm this in writing to me and he indicates in a letter to me dated today, 26 August, as follows:

Recommendation 7 within the election report for the 2018 state election proposed to bring forward the closing date for receipt of postal vote applications so they could be issued by post in sufficient time for them to be received by electors to enable them to vote before 6pm on polling day.

I will come back to his explanation about that in a moment. In respect of the specific issue of the publication in the report, he says:

I have reviewed the information which appears to have been sourced from the 2018 state election report and confirm that an incorrect textual reference relating to the volume of enrolments has been included in that report. While the figure of almost 25,000 is correct, the reference to the period being a six-day period from the issue of the writ to the close of rolls should have in fact stated as 'during the last month before the close of the rolls'.

I just advise you of that information because all of your speeches enclosed the same issue of there being a situation of, on the face of it, 25,000 people enrolling in six days. Then it is translated to the argument, which I think is the red herring in this position, that therefore a moving of a six-day to a two-day period robs the opportunity of electors to be able to enrol, and therefore in some way, shuts the gate or closes the gate towards time.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, this is what the Electoral Commissioner explains. He refers to recommendation 7 about the postal vote:

While this recommendation sought to resolve a particular problem—

that is, in relation to postal votes being received—

it had the effect of reducing overall number of days following the close of the rolls to process applications and issue those postal votes. Therefore a proposal was forwarded through your department—

and he is sending this to me—

addressing this issue and proposing to reinstate an equivalent period by bringing forward the close of rolls date by four days. This proposal would provide almost the same period in which applications could be processed after the rolls closed with the ballot materials prepared and mailed to each eligible postal voter. The proposal provided in October 2020 is attached for that clarity.

I am happy to have that available for anyone else who wants to have a read of it. He continues:

During the debates of the merits of this proposal—

that is, the advancing of the days for the purposes of allowing postal vote applications to survive and be included in the count—

it would appear that references have been made to the volume of enrolments at the 2018 state election during the period leading up to the date of the close of rolls.

Then, as I have indicated, there is the explanation of the error in relation to the description of the number of people who have been made available.

What is important to appreciate here and to perhaps explain, hopefully as clearly as possible, is why this is therefore a red herring. Why is it that to address the problem that we have in relation to postal votes and giving an opportunity for them to survive and therefore changing the dates in relation to that, there is not then a direct correlation to Rob the new elector and a chance to vote? I will tell you the reason why: it is because the Electoral Commissioner has made it very clear that the election that he has provided a report on had his campaign and it is all set out in his report.

I will find the page reference for those who are following this. Starting at page 35 of his report in chapter 3, this is the education division, he sets out what his office did. Bear in mind he has an obligation under the Electoral Act to actually educate the public and, amongst other things, you can see that in the legislation, but he sets out the campaign that they undertook in that month before the election.

There is another factor we need to consider here, that is, since 2002 we have had fixed date elections. It has to be on the third Saturday of the fourth annual anniversary in March for the election, unless in certain circumstances. They are limited to very few, but one of them, of course, is if a federal election were called during the month of March in which our election is due, then there is a capacity for our election to be delayed for up to several weeks. That does not mean it has to be—even in a circumstance where a federal election is announced—on 19 March 2022, but any time in March, so we have a backup situation there for that.

So we have this fixed election arrangement and the Electoral Commissioner, as he reported to the parliament in chapter 3, undertook a comprehensive nearly $500,000 campaign to educate South Australia in getting the message out to have a say, enrol and, as he reports here in the report, using the slogan 'Put your vote where your voice is'. That was the 2018 slogan from the Electoral Commissioner.

I think I have made this clear to the parliament, but if people have not understood this I will make it very clear: the Electoral Commissioner, to try to capture and save the postal vote problem that was experienced—and I do not think I need to explain that to a lot of the members here; they understood the problems we had in the 2018 election—has recommended the changes there, but to ensure there is no disadvantage to those who might be alerted in this campaign to enrol and have a say, he has publicly made it clear that on 22 January, not the 28^th but 22 January, he will start that campaign.

So the people of South Australia, who know the election is coming up on the third Saturday of the fourth anniversary in March, will, from the 22^nd, be alerted and have all the materials out there in a campaign to remind them of the opportunities they have and the different ways they can express their view, have a voice, have a vote and know how to enrol.

There are a lot of other campaigns after that month that the Electoral Commission undertakes as well, and most members are familiar with these: where the polling booths are, how you vote, what the nature or the type of voting system is that we have in this state. They are all important pieces of information. However, the key issue that has featured in the opposition's contribution to this debate is that somehow or other the people of South Australia, particularly young people, are going to be excluded by this recommendation that has been taken up by the Electoral Commissioner and that we have presented to the parliament.

This is not some kind of attempt by me or anyone else on this side of the house to somehow or other disenfranchise people from the opportunity to enrol and have a say. In fact, it is a recommendation of the Electoral Commissioner, and he has made it very clear that that campaign will again occur, even though he is asking us, the parliament, to accept his recommendation to change the rules in relation to postal votes, which is in this bill, so that we do not have the same disadvantage in relation to that opportunity to vote.

I want to be absolutely clear here that I do not think that is the intention of the Electoral Commissioner. I think his report is very clear as to why he is doing this. He does not want to disadvantage those who—as they did in 2018—elected to use a postal vote system. He wants to be able to remedy that situation, but he does not want to disenfranchise those who will have a month, as they have had in previous elections, to be alerted and have the opportunity to enrol to vote, because it is important.

Members have quite rightly pointed out the significance of democracy. The member for Cheltenham even brought it into contemporary terms to remind us of how important it is to have the right to vote, especially when you have countries that we are now attempting to support—both in the return of our people and the support of civilians from Afghanistan—who are in a desperate circumstance. Those people do not have the freedoms and the right to vote that we have, and he is quite right that it is important we reflect on that from time to time, on what a privilege we have in this state, in this country, to have that vote.

It is a secret ballot. We do not have somebody standing next to us with a machine gun at the polling booth when we line up to have a vote, and we do not have the fear of repercussions if we do not write a certain way—that is, death to your or your family. We have had monitoring in elections for years. Australia has been a great observer in that area of responsibility. So he is quite right, and other members are quite right, to remind us of the significance of that.

However, I want to assure the house that there is no mischief in the Electoral Commissioner's recommendation to us that we try to protect those who utilised a postal vote and missed out. He is trying to remedy that. He is also trying to reassure the house that there is no loss of time from the alerting of this issue to the public, to parents who might say, 'My child is turning 18 in February. I had better make sure they enrolled to vote,' etc.

That is still a very important job of the Electoral Commissioner, and he is committed to continuing to carry that out. That is to continue, and you can expect—from his published position—that the campaign for the next election will start on 22 January 2022 and that there will be all the usual aspects to it: material, electronic information, obviously website information, community meetings with different CALD communities and, very importantly I think, information to young voters.

In fact, I was just handed a poster of a young woman that says on it, 'Got an opinion? Vote with it. Enrol for the state election.' Clearly this is targeted to the area of the youth vote that many members have referred to. I am confident, and I am certainly satisfied, that the Electoral Commissioner has every intention of doing what he sees as important to ensure that we encourage those who have a right to vote to vote, that they exercise that right, that they have a voice and are aware of what the circumstances are. That is the first thing.

The second aspect relates to the timing of the bill. Can I just make a brief contribution on this. It seems to have escaped the attention of a number of members what has actually happened. We had the election in 2018. We had a report in 2019. We had a bill in 2020. In fact, within a very short time after we went into pandemic circumstances we had a bill in this parliament. It has been through and voted on in here. It has been dealt with in the upper house. It has been disposed of and, of course, included the optional preferential voting, which I still love.

The parliament has spoken and said, 'No, we're not having that.' Fine, that is what has happened. Frankly, I always find it curious that I could sit down with Mr Rau, the former member for Enfield and my predecessor as Attorney-General—

Mr Picton: Misleading: he wouldn't sit down with you.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —listen up—and have discussions with him about a new system of voting in the Legislative Council—wait for it—optional preferential voting and a model that we would discuss, which ultimately did come to the parliament and was passed, and we utilised it during the last election. Guess what? The sky did not fall in. Somehow or another, optional preferential voting is a great idea if the Labor Party thinks of it, but it is a hideous idea if we think of it. Anyway, it has happened. I might be around another day to canvass the pros and cons of that, but that has now gone.

We are now back to corflutes in another bill. I will not canvass that because there is another bill in the parliament to deal with those. We are back to the core information and recommendations of the commission. There is one that is missing, and I will come to that in a moment, in relation to No. 1 because it has also been part of the discussion here. In relation to the timing, we had a bill. It was dealt with in the other place. It was introduced the House of Assembly in July 2020, so even with the pandemic we got on with that. It was passed in October.

The Legislative Council dealt with it, disposed of it in March this year, and then of course we have progressed the carve out, I suppose, of what I thought would be relatively uncontentious. Nevertheless, obviously parliament can express a view that is different from that of the Electoral Commissioner. I am happy to hear that, but I am just making a point that most of these recommendations are his recommendations.

Let's talk about the timing of the bill. I keep hearing there are X sitting days left, that we are seven months out from the election. I think it is 204 days, actually until the next election and, yes, bring it on. I am more than happy to have an election. I love elections, actually. Nevertheless, there is the incredible gall of the opposition to say, 'How dare you introduce electoral reform seven months out from an election? How dare you do that?' To even have the Leader of the Opposition come in here who, you might recall, on the last night of the dying days, when he was over in the Legislative Council—they do all sorts of things in the—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —Legislative Council. On the dying night of parliament, they passed legislation to remove the fairness clause in our electoral laws. They do that and of course they thought it was going to be brilliant, that it was going to be their big strategy, that this was going to revolutionise the way the counting would occur in elections and that they would be back in government because they would be able to sustain an argument for equal numbers of people in every electorate, as though one vote, one value meant that every electorate had to be equal in number. As we all know, the boundaries commission took place subsequent to that, and then Mr Reggie Martin, the secretary of the Labor Party, took on and challenged that boundary distribution in the Supreme Court and lost 5-0, of course.

Mr Picton interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, I just make this point. They lost the argument and the Labor Party came limping out of the Supreme Court and thought, 'We are going to soldier on. We have been robbed.' Even though 5-0 was the decision, they had been robbed. The whole strategy started to fall apart. Anyway, the Leader of the Opposition, who was one of the architects of all that horrible mess for them, has now come into our house and has the gall to come in here and say, 'How dare you introduce legislation that will change the electoral laws seven months before the election.' Give me a break!

In any event, let's look at the late enrolment aspect. I just want to look at this question because it has been referred to, and members quite rightly say, 'If you are keen to follow the Electoral Commission's reforms as per his recommendations, why haven't you progressed recommendation 1?' That is quite a legitimate question, let me make that very clear. Through all these contributions, I have also heard of the difficulty, the weight, the burden of having to have all this electoral reform just before the next election.

Well, let me say this: there is no question that there are two things that are happening at the moment. One is that we are dealing with a bill with quite significant electoral reform. We are extending the pre-polling, we are doing some changes to postal arrangements, etc. They are all the machinery of operation in relation to elections and what is in this bill. Secondly, we are dealing with a pandemic, which has created a whole lot of other aspects in relation to people congregating in a public place and all the personal safety and health issues surrounding that.

We are dealing with reforms that enable us to progress all these things in a circumstance. For example, I received a submission yesterday from Mr Sherry setting out other reasons why, especially with COVID plans and COVID marshals and various other things that are necessary on top of the multimillion dollar cost of elections—extra money that he will need to be able to deal with an election where they may be—

Mr Brown: Can we see it?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: You asked the question during estimates. In relation to the extra money that is sought, all this planning that is going on, it is a bit of a moving feast. Obviously, I will take his request to a Mid-Year Budget Review; there is a normal process that happens with these things. I remind members that we did actually set out some extra provision in the budget for some other aspects that he asked for at the time, but he has now brought to my attention some new things that he needs to have considered, and I indicate that for the importance of having an election those matters will be presented in the usual process.

Let me just explain therefore that, if we were to introduce these reforms and all the provisions that we have in relation to extra personnel, etc., required by the commission to deal with the COVID circumstances, then we are going to have to identify what else is the most important. I am advised that in relation to recommendation 1, yes, there would be a cost obviously because there would be a requirement for the Electoral Commission to be able to process and then ultimately assess, and then open and count later, declarations in relation to late enrolments as we move up to either the day before the election or the day of the election. That clearly is an extra cost, and we had to make some decision about how much we could advance in this tranche of legislation and what was going to have to be the priority.

We have not dismissed recommendation 1. I think there were three recommendations that Attorney-General Rau did not progress from the 2014 election. They say, 'Why aren't you doing all this?' We have not completely eliminated it, but at this stage we are not going to consider that. So we have made a judgement as to what we think is appropriate, and some of you have raised that it is a massive exercise to have an election. More particularly, if we are under any form of restrictions, how can we manage that and also ensure that everyone will have their democratic right to vote, and that it can be counted?

A number of those include the development of telephone voting and the accessibility of that program—two parties who are either overseas or are sight-impaired, etc. As I said, I will come to those in just a minute, but I make the point that we have not done everything in this. Again, I can honestly say—

Mr Picton: You've done the bit that stops the enrolment; you just haven't done the bit that makes enrolment easier—funny that.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, I am just telling you that there is nothing different with the advance of this bill from what we have at present in having a campaign for a month before the election for very clear information and instruction to assist people. Frankly, all of us, as members of parliament, should also be at our citizenship ceremonies supporting ECSA, which I know many of you do, to make sure that new citizens get information and have an opportunity to enrol.

You can enrol electronically to get to vote. If you have children coming up to 18 or grandchildren or neighbour's children or anyone else, again I think we all have a civic responsibility to encourage people to have a say, have a vote and have a voice. The member for Kaurna expressed concern regarding the regulations prescribing additional classes of people who can access telephone-assisted voting. The flexibility that is provided in the bill is important, especially given the risk of ongoing COVID outbreaks. For example, it may be necessary to allow for telephone-assisted voting in nursing homes, remote communities, quarantine facilities and prisons.

Members will be aware that in 2017 we introduced amendments to the Electoral Act that allowed for electronically assisted voting for sight-impaired electors. There were only about 100 people who ultimately took up that model. It was available through one of the support agencies. There were a number that assisted the ECSA. It is all in the report. The Electoral Commission had purchased a package of software—a program from Western Australia—but you needed to physically be at a place to then be assisted to vote. This is a new system. As I understand, this is how it is to work: you phone in, you give your name and address and date of birth and you then are identified as to what electorate you are in and so forth. You are then transferred to somebody else who you do not give your name and address to, but you have got through the first hurdle. They give you an identifier number and the options of who to vote for. I remember I was given this information. I will try to clarify it before we get to committee.

Ms Bedford: Don't try it at home then.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No. I was asked to explain how this worked by someone the other day and I had the information directly in front of me. In short, you get an identifier number and then you go to have your vote, but there is an observer who listens in to make sure, presumably, firstly, that the person does translate what you want in the vote that you are asking for in this process and also as some supervision. The operator then determines the elector's district after you have given your name and address. The operator transfers the elector to a specialist telephone voting assistant and, without disclosing the elector's identity, provides the unique identifying number and the House of Assembly district for which the elector is entitled to vote. That is the second thing I was trying to think of.

To provide assurance that the voting intention of the elector is followed by the telephone voting assistant completing the ballot papers on their behalf, an observer would listen and observe the entire voting transaction. The telephone voting assistant marks the ballot papers in the presence of the observer and then reads back the voter's preference to confirm their intention and, if corrections are made, they are confirmed by the observer. The observer will declare the voter's intention has been followed by writing the unique identifier number on the declaration envelope, signing the declaration, folding the ballot papers and sealing them inside the declaration envelope.

It is a little bit like doing your SACA vote, for those of you who are members. You get an envelope and another envelope and then you put your signed ballot in the envelope. That has no identification on it and then you put it in another envelope. It is a new system. It is one that has been used in a number of other states and New Zealand. It has been operating, essentially, since 2007 I think in one of the jurisdictions, so it is not new. Our own Electoral Commissioner has used the vote assist in the last election, but now we are going to a much more modern and contemporary version, which is able to assist. I think it is also very important to the people we are helping here—in COVID there will be many more for the reasons I have explained—the international electors, those living overseas or stuck overseas or still doing their service overseas. Consultation with the disability sector has occurred and that is something that is occurring. Since federal elections, we have had vision-impaired electors using telephone voting—in Victoria, since 2010; in New South Wales, since 2011; in Queensland, since 2015; and in Western Australia, since 2017. I am sure we would have heard if there were major problems in relation to that.

That is what is happening. Regarding the removal of the requirement of the Electoral Commissioner to encourage voting on polling day, if ever there was a reason to move to an opportunity to pre-poll, it is the fact that we are in the middle of COVID. We have already had three elections that we know of that are very high profile: New Zealand, Queensland and Western Australia just in recent COVID time. Nearly half the electors—increasing each time—have elected to vote before election day. One of the reasons is that obviously they do not want to take a risk going out, they do not want to have their health compromised, etc., and we understand the reason for that.

We have always taken the view that people ought to have the right to vote when they determine they wish to vote. We now have a pandemic with us. The Electoral Commissioner is asking for from the week before—I think it is currently a week, because there is a public holiday on the Monday in the week before the next election. He is seeking the two weeks before so that there can be a pre-poll opportunity. He has announced that there will be many more pre-polling booths. Obviously, we are in the middle of a pandemic and if ever there was a reason to do it, it is now. It is a surge in popularity for the choice and convenience of people generally. We are in the 21^st century. We need to recognise that and ECSA has recognised that. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.