Electoral (Electronic Documents and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 August 2021.)

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (22:57): I am continuing my remarks from 26 August 2021 and start by confirming that today I have tabled the corrigendum to the correct page 14 of the tabled version of the Electoral Commission of South Australia. I refer to that to remind members that the replacing paragraph now reads:

South Australians responded positively to ECSA's calls for enrolment with approximately 25,000 enrolment and updates effected in the month leading up to the close of rolls. During the six days from the issue of the writs to the close of the rolls there were approximately 11,900 enrolments and updates to the electoral roll, representing a decrease of 20.6 per cent from the same period in 2014.

I referred to the relevance of this when I addressed the parliament on 26 August this year, so I will not repeat it, but I do highlight a reference to the decrease in the number of enrolments in that last period of six days from the 2014 election—and I will refer to that in a moment—remembering that, for the purposes of elections, between 2014 and 2015 the total population of voters who enrolled to vote was 1,142,419 enrolled in the 2014 election and another 60,000-odd voters in the 2018 election, to 1,201,775. Again, I will refer to that later.

I also read to the house a letter I have now received from the Australian Electoral Commission, Mr Tom Rogers, to Mr Mick Sherry, the Electoral Commissioner here in the Electoral Commission of SA. It reads:

Dear Mr Sherry

Implications of potential 'enrolment on the day'

As discussed in our phone calls late last week, I am aware the South Australian Government is considering potential amendments to South Australian electoral legislation with the intent of enabling citizens to 'enrol on the day' for state elections. As you and I both discussed, similar provisions apply to some, but not all, other Australian state jurisdictions; nor is this facility available for federal elections.

The level of cooperation between our two agencies is excellent, and so it pains me to inform you I have grave doubts about our ability to support the implementation of this measure in time for your next state election in March 2022.

The AEC is already fully committed to the planning and conduct of the next federal election which can be called any time between now and late May 2022. The substantial complexity of preparing a federal election with a COVID overlay, recent significant legislative change, and implementation of redistributions in two states, have created the conditions for the most complex election in our history. Adding additional complexity without sufficient time for adequate planning and resourcing introduces a serious risk of electoral failure.

Such provisions are technically possible, and when implemented with adequate planning can further extend the franchise. However, given how deep we mutually are in the SA and federal electoral cycles I am unable to guarantee sufficient support in the days following your election to guarantee all 'on the day enrolment' would be finalised in time for those votes to be included in your count. This is particularly the case given the state and federal events may be temporally close.

Of course, were this measure to be implemented for future elections, we would be happy to work with you on implementation, costs, and risk mitigation.

I am happy to discuss this matter with you further.

Yours sincerely

Tom Rogers

7 September 2021

I indicated when last contributing in this debate the cost and complexity of dealing with what is effectively recommendation 1 of the Electoral Commissioner's report back in 2019. This letter simply confirms the fact that we are in a pandemic, that we are in a circumstance where there has been major reform in this bill and at the national level, the redistributions referred to here and the incapacity for there to be any assurance for there to be an effective enrolment up to polling day by the AEC.

That is just not a practical matter to consider, and whilst the members on the other side have presented some argument that this somehow or other is evidence of a conspiracy of some voter suppression of the youth vote, the reality is that this is the practical situation that we are in. I bring this matter to the attention of the house because the Electoral Commissioner here has advised me of the conversations he has had with Mr Rogers. He has now confirmed that in writing and has provided me with that letter. That is the position. We cannot—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member interjects to complain about the timing. This legislation was brought in a year ago and the member might recall that they voted it down.

Mr Brown interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Playford!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: So we are actually back here for a second tranche to try to have the recommendations of the commissioner introduced. There was an opportunity for the opposition to support a number of these matters and to raise these issues before—no, they decided they were just going to vote it down. Well, that is the way they did it. I cannot undo that, but do not come and complain to this house that there has been a failure to expedite this matter during the course of this debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens rises on a point of order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The Attorney just told the house that this legislation is identical to previous legislation considered by this house and rejected in the same session.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I did not say that at all.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I can get the Hansard if you like.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for West Torrens has the call.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The Attorney-General just told the house, responding to an interjection, that this legislation had been considered by the house and rejected a year ago. They were her comments. If that is true, this legislation cannot be considered again by the house.

The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. I listened carefully to the Deputy Premier's remarks. They did not accord directly with those attributed by the member for West Torrens.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As the member for Kaurna at least understands, there has been a process where a bill has been presented to this house previously. We have been through all the issues relating to optional preferential voting being an aspect of that, corflutes now being the subject of another bill, and the matters relating to the recommendations of the Electoral Commissioner are now back again from that bill in this bill.

Mr Brown interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Playford!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not know how clear I can be about it.

Mr Picton interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Kaurna!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In any event, the members decide they want to continue to interject.

The SPEAKER: The Deputy Premier will not respond to interjections.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, thank you, sir. In the meantime, in this debate, there has been correspondence received by me—and I understand to the opposition—from the Commissioner for Children and Young People. Her letter to me is dated 18 August 2021. I firstly want to thank the commissioner for her correspondence and the opportunity to meet with her in respect of this correspondence.

In short, the commissioner expresses her concerns in some aspects in relation to this bill. The concerns that she has highlighted relate to the amendments to the change of date for the close of rolls, her preference for enrolment up to polling day and the concern about the removal of the mandatory obligation to advertise in newspapers in the circumstance that that might, in some way or other, make it more difficult for youth voters.

I have addressed these in some detail but, in short, for the purposes of this submission, the date of the close of rolls is a complete red herring. The six days to two days, coupled with the announcement by the commissioner—the electoral commissioner that is—that he will indeed be taking his advertising campaign forward to 22 January instead of 26 January, enables there to continue to be exactly the same time frame of an advertising campaign as the last election, for which there was nearly $500,000 to deal with that issue. So there will be that provision of alert to the population to ensure that there is every opportunity to encourage people to vote. That is the first thing.

The second is the preference for enrolment up to polling day. I do not know how much clearer the letter from the Australian Electoral Commission would make it, but that is not a practical aspect for this forthcoming election. Again, if the member for West Torrens had been listening to the debate he would have said that is not a matter that cannot be considered on another occasion and, to use my exact words on this so that he is absolutely clear about this, I had said on the 26 August that we have not dismissed recommendation 1.

The commissioner then raises her concern about the level of knowledge and awareness that young people have about electoral processes and time lines. I have passed this information on to the Electoral Commissioner who has the responsibility under the Electoral Act to inform the public of their democratic rights and obligations, and I am sure he will work on the feedback that the commissioner has obtained from young people on these issues.

The Electoral Commission set out the approach it took to its advertising campaign in the last election in chapter 3 of the election report, which is appropriately titled 'Getting the message out'. The advertising occurred across a wide range of platforms including television, radio, digital channels, social media, posters and billboards, in addition to the Electoral Commissioner's website and printed materials. The Electoral Commission worked closely with the government media agency to ensure the placement strategy targeted audiences that had been underrepresented in the past state elections, including young people.

In addition to that, in a meeting I had with the Commissioner for Children and Young People, she confirmed that she had written to the commissioner herself in April this year suggesting a number of possible opportunities to work together to increase enrolment and voter turnout for young people. She had outlined in her meeting with me that prior to the 2018 election she had worked with young people to try to ensure that there was even a mock election and the opportunity to be able to learn the processes in relation to voting, and suggested that a 'youth in a booth' campaign was worthy of consideration of continuing, and that there be a contemporary reward system for first-time voters and a combined birthday card for 18 year olds to encourage them to enrol.

Of course, these are matters for the independent Electoral Commissioner to take up if he thinks they are appropriate. I am advised by the Commissioner for Children that the Electoral Commissioner replied in May this year. He supported it in principle and invited there be conversations, and I understand, again from the Commissioner for Children, that she was referred to a person within the Electoral Commission to continue to have discussions with to assist in that regard. In anticipation of that, I thank her in advance for doing that.

The information on the feedback on the electoral bill really was a little unclear in the letter, so I asked the commissioner to outline the particulars of the reference in her letter which reads:

To inform my response to the bill I asked a group of young South Australians aged 15 to 22 year olds their thoughts on the barriers to enrolment and voting for young people and how the proposed amendment might impact young people.

I am satisfied on the information that she has provided that she sought feedback on 13 August for closure of that on 18 August, so she gave them five days to actually provide the feedback, but she surveyed 15 policy advocates and she had nine responses. She sent out a questionnaire to these policy advocates. I am not sure whether they are individuals or organisations but in any event these were the questions:

1. How important do you think it is for young people to vote? Why?

2. One of the proposed changes to the Electoral Act would reduce the amount of time people have to enrol to vote. How do you think this will impact young people?

3. What do you think governments need to consider to make it easier for young people to enrol to vote?

4. What do you think are the barriers to voting?

5. Is there anything you would like to add on this topic?

This was, she says, to inform her response to the draft bill and 'the commissioner wants to hear your thoughts about voting'. Of the nine responses she has advised me of quotes from the survey—there were nine of these. In particular, in response to question 3, which I remind members was, 'What do you think governments need to consider to make it easier for young people to enrol to vote?' these were the answers:

1. I think that including a crash course on voting program or some form of educational program to teach young people about our voting processes would make engaging in democracy more accessible to young people.

2. Allow people from the age of 16 to vote but it is compulsory from 18. Educating people in schools about the importance of voting.

3. The government should look at online voting as well as having polling booths in youth organisations to ensure that it is accessible and easy. Additionally, it may be a good idea for governments to contact young people and let them know how to enrol and why it is important.

4. Target younger people as a target audience. Their voices are just as important as anyone's, more important even as in the future generations.

5. Having it open for a period of time closer to the election.

6. Get kids to enrol at school when they turn 16.

7. Media advertisements targeted towards younger people should incorporate knowledge on how to vote and how to enrol, also easily online accessible requires schools to also mention enrolling in years 11 and 12.

8. I think making the information about enrolling to vote more accessible will make it easier for young people to enrol to vote. This includes to provide brochures in schools and easily accessible information on social media.

I thank the commissioner for providing this information. Items 5, 6 and 7 of those quotes were referred to in her letter but none of the others. I must say I found it a little unusual that a 15 year old or someone between 15 and 22 would have actually answered in this way. It sounds to me like someone is writing as an adult what they think young people need to do, but I may be wrong. None of it is in the first person; it is all in reference to things oriented towards younger people rather than actually to me as the survey filler. Nevertheless, that is information that is helpful and can be passed on to the commission.

Interestingly, when I met with the commissioner she provided me with the envelope in which she raised this survey. That is that for the last year or so—in fact, four years, it seems—she has been working on a democracy project, and within that envelope she has been looking at voting for youth and encouraging civics amongst youth. That is admirable and I think it is a matter where, as I have said previously in this debate, it is important for all of us to ensure that we encourage people who have the opportunity to have a voice and a vote to enrol and do so. It is clearly democracy in action.

One matter that she has raised with me as important for the civics education of children has been the publication only a couple of months ago, in May of this year, of a teacher's handbook, which is described as South Australia's first curriculum aligned, project-based, action civics resource for primary and secondary educators. It is a compendium which is also available online, I am advised. She tells me that 60 schools have signed up to receive this information and obviously develop this and have it available as a resource to teachers within those schools.

This is an important document because it is important that we do, of course, encourage these activities in schools. I am advised, however, by the education department, that they do have a civics program, just for those of you who might be wondering whether that is still happening in our schools. I am advised that it certainly is. It is a program which is—let me just find it. I cannot readily find it, so I will refer to it shortly.

In relation to the booklet itself, I note that this is a document, as I say, published by the Commissioner for Children and Young People. It is under her copyright with all rights reserved, and she acknowledged in it—in this compendium available to schools—a thankyou to a Mr Scott Warren and the team at Generation Citizen for their action civics knowledge and advice from another continent. I was not familiar with Generation Citizen. It is an American company, which was run at the time, as I understand it, although he has since resigned in I think the year 2000, by Mr Scott Warren, who has been the CEO of this organisation and I think co-founder.

It is an organisation, which members might be interested to know, that is committed obviously to the civics education of young people. Again, that is most admirable. I noted on its website it also has a policy position of 16 year olds having a vote. Again, people are entitled to have that position—for example, the Hon. Mark Parnell, formerly of the other place, was a strong advocate for 16 year olds having the vote.

I also note that it is an organisation which has produced and prepared a manual for the purposes of assisting teachers in schools of how they might operate an action civics resource for primary and secondary schools. It has lesson plans in parts 2, 3, 4 and 5, as set out in the document that I was provided, and it has plans that are able to assist the teacher to write that.

It has an extraordinary likeness to the document prepared by the company Generation Citizen in the United States. Again, I do not think any member of this house would have issue with the importance of everyone having an opportunity to vote and enrolling to vote to enable them to do that, because it is not an automatic process. You do have to actually enrol, even though you can do it online. You have to go through that process.

But it is concerning to me that, after all the speeches I have heard in this house about the American politics style that we are supposed to be reflecting in this government as some kind of suppression of the youth vote, the very group they go to to espouse the argument for civics action of children is from the United States. In any event, I thank the commissioner for coming in to see me and providing this information to enable me to indicate some reliability of the matters raised.

Mr Picton interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Kaurna!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The final thing she does raise as a concern in her letter relates to the removal of the requirement to advertise in print media. I had a discussion with the commissioner about this because I do not know a lot of young people who actually read newspapers or even country newspapers. Nevertheless, I am certainly one who likes to read real paper papers and not just online versions, so I am one of the generation who is very happy to support the purchase of country newspapers, which I regularly do in whatever district I attend.

She was not able to illuminate for me circumstances in which she was aware that children had requested that there be some access to printed newspapers, rather than digital access. She did refer me to a paper she had done, titled My Digital Life report, which relates to the poverty difference of children who do not have access to digital opportunities. They can be certainly not treated equitably in access to information generally and obviously as an instrument to assist their education. It is quite an interesting and important report with important aspects.

It underpins, of course, the importance of our public education system having these services available to children, complemented by our libraries. With that, I thank members for their contribution and look forward to further matters being raised in committee.

Ayes 18

Noes 16

Majority 2

Second reading thus carried; bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The CHAIR: There are 40 clauses, numerous amendments and a title. There is a question on clause 1. The member for Kaurna is poised.

Mr PICTON: That was quite an exceptional summing-up that we just had from the Deputy Premier, where she outlined a number of different letters, instructions and recommendations that she has had from both the state Electoral Commissioner and the federal Electoral Commissioner. To my knowledge, these documents, letters and information have not been provided to the opposition and have not been provided to other members of parliament. I think that it is very important when we are dealing with legislation such as this that we get a proper ability to dissect that information, to read that information and to be briefed on that information before we debate it in this parliament. That has not happened on this occasion. We are having to rely upon the Attorney-General's word for what these documents say rather than being able to see them ourselves.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

Mr PICTON: We need to make sure that appropriate information is provided to all members of parliament so all members of parliament can get the information that the Attorney-General has referred to in her summing-up speech from independent officials, the Electoral Commissioner at a state level and the Electoral Commissioner at the federal level.

That has not happened. No briefing has been provided. No information has been sent to the opposition. Therefore, I recommend that we need to adjourn this debate to make sure that there can be a proper briefing. Hence, I move:

That progress be reported.

The committee divided on the motion:

Ayes 16

Noes 19

Majority 3

Motion thus negatived.

The CHAIR: We shall return to clause 1.

Mr PICTON: In regard to the timing of this legislation, there has been some discussion already through the second reading debate, but it seems very clear that the recommendations from the Electoral Commissioner were given to the Attorney-General two years ago. Now we are here, on the eve of the election, and the Attorney-General is trying to change the rules of the election. So why has it taken the Attorney-General two years to get to the point of debating these recommendations in the parliament?

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: Because you have been filibustering when everything else has come before it.

The CHAIR: Order, minister!

Mr PICTON: Thank you, sir. I appreciate your protection from the withering attacks from the Minister for Energy and Mining.

The CHAIR: I am sure you can soldier on, but I remind members that interjections are out of order.

Mr PICTON: This is a report that was presented way back in 2018. The Attorney's defence seems to be, 'We had the previous legislation in the past year.' That does not explain why there was such a lengthy delay to look at it. Obviously, that legislation included her own special spices and flavours that she added to the mix, which made it completely unpalatable for the parliament to pass. Why has it taken the Attorney so long to act on these recommendations?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I made that answer very clear during my presentation.

The CHAIR: So you are referring to your closing remarks and the second reading?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: During the debate and the closing remarks.

Mr PICTON: Very clearly, this debate was happening in the shadow of the next election. Many concerns have been raised by members throughout the debate. The Attorney herself has now introduced a new discussion point from the Electoral Commissioner at the federal level, raising the spectre that, for the amendments moved by this parliament, it may be too late for proper cooperation between the federal and state electoral commissioners in the lead-up to the next state and federal elections.

Why is the Attorney-General proposing changes with such little time between now and the next election? Are there risks that any element of what is currently being proposed in the Attorney's bill will be unable to be implemented in time for the next election?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The matters in the bill are able to be advanced, and they come as a consistent recommendation from the Electoral Commissioner. As I have indicated throughout this debate, they are both achievable and provided for. In relation to the matter of allowing enrolment up to and/or on election day—there is another considered amendment coming in at two weeks or something—that has clearly not been achievable. I will just explain to the committee that the AEC is the body that receives the enrolments and they then provide them to the state. That is why that process is there.

I have asked the Electoral Commissioner in South Australia to obtain confirmation in writing from the Electoral Commissioner, from whom he receives advice as to the technical impasse in relation to the opposition's amendment. That letter is dated today, and I provided it to the parliament today to confirm the position that has been advised to me—that is, that the amendment the opposition wishes to pursue is not achievable for the purpose of the next election.

Mr PICTON: Why has the Attorney up until now not provided copies of all those elements of correspondence to the opposition? Presuming we are finishing soon tonight, will she commit to providing to the opposition, before the debate tomorrow, all elements of the correspondence she has received from both the state and the federal electoral commissioners with regard to this legislation and also the opportunity for a briefing to take place with the state Electoral Commissioner about this new information that she has provided to the parliament at the last minute?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Firstly, in relation to the electoral bills, there has been a consistent offer of briefings. Briefings have been provided, but the Electoral Commissioner has also made himself available. The deputy, Mr Gully, has also been available. My recollection is that the last meeting I had was with Mr Reggie Martin—the secretary of the Australian Labor Party—and Mr  Gully and advisers. He asked a number of questions about funding reforms. So he has availed himself—

Mr Picton: It's a separate bill.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am just indicating that, in relation to all the electoral bills, but in relation to that one particularly, all were present. I think that Mr Gully on that occasion was available on the phone because we were in the middle of a COVID situation, but in any event we were all there to discuss matters.

In relation to the correspondence we received today, which I have read in, I am happy to provide a copy of that to the opposition. In relation to the matter I otherwise read in, I have already tabled that in the parliament today. That is the erratum I referred to on the last occasion, which has now been tabled to correct the error in relation to the commissioner's report. I simply read that out today so that is available for anyone to inspect.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is usual practice in the house that, if a minister is quoting from a document for the ability of the committee to understand the amendment, the entire document be tabled and I would ask you to instruct the Attorney-General to table the documents, rather than making them just available generally to members, and make them a permanent part of the record.

The CHAIR: Attorney, are you happy to table those documents? It is six of one and half a dozen of the other.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy to table the letter. It is not actually a schedule, but it is a letter that I read out.

The CHAIR: Is that what you are looking for, member for West Torrens, the two documents?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The Attorney-General quoted from a number of documents in her second reading contribution. I would like those documents tabled.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have quoted from two documents today. I have read out the letter from the Australian Electoral Commission, which is dated today and which was received, and I am happy to make that available. I have also referred to the page that was already tabled just before question time today.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If it has already been tabled, that is fine.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I just said that.

The CHAIR: I missed that, member for West Torrens.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: He said if it has already been tabled, it is fine.

The CHAIR: My understanding is that the Attorney is prepared to table the second document and is indicating that the first document—I am putting them in that order at least—was tabled at question time.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I understand the Attorney-General read out and quoted from other documents as well from the consultation and I would like her to table those—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order, member for Chaffey!

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! We are nearly to midnight.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Chaffey! The member for Chaffey is called to order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I think he needs a moment, sir.

The CHAIR: He does. I was not in the chair, so I am unsure how many other documents the Attorney referred to.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: In her closing remarks, the Attorney was quoting from documents—not just the AEC document she has tabled now but other documents as well—and I ask her to table those as well.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There are some other notes here. If the member has anything extra he particularly wants to know about, I am happy to have a look for it. I have a lot of notes here, some of which are not appropriate to table because they are notes to me and my notes in relation to the submission I have presented. I have made available the full letter, which I have read out in full, and that is all I have to table.

The CHAIR: My understanding is that documents are different from a member's notes. The documents have been tabled. If there are any further documents, as opposed to notes, then the Attorney might consider tabling them. If there are not any other documents as such, then that is it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Just for clarification, I am not sure what she was quoting from.

The CHAIR: Nor am I, member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am not saying that they were her notes, but I take her word if the Attorney said it was her notes, but the Attorney-General was quoting from a series of documents. Just for the benefit of the committee, she could table them. If they are notes, I accept that they should not be tabled, but if they are documents that the Attorney was quoting from they should be tabled in their entirety.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not think I have quoted from any others. I have referred to a document, which is the materials teacher's handbook, if the member would like to have a look at it. It is available online, but if he would like to have a look at my copy, he is welcome to it.

The CHAIR: We are spending a fair bit of time on this. The Attorney has during question time and just a moment ago tabled two documents that she quoted from during her contributions. She has also referred to a teacher's handbook that is publicly available and my understanding is that, aside from that, they are simply notes that the Attorney was referring to. Let's move on. Any further questions on clause 1?

Mr BROWN: The Attorney has now tabled a letter purporting to be from Mr Tom Rogers from the AEC regarding a phone conversation that he had with Mr Mick Sherry.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The member for Chaffey is warned.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr BROWN: Sorry, I am just enjoying the show up here.

The CHAIR: Let's see if we can get through this last 10 minutes without too much trouble.

Mr BROWN: My question to the Attorney is this: is the Attorney able to provide the house with anything from Mr Sherry outlining what exactly was the nature of his phone conversation with the AEC, and what he put to the AEC as his understanding of the amendments that were being foreshadowed for this legislation?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have had conversations with the Electoral Commissioner, Mr Sherry, when he raised concerns about the capacity to effect the foreshadowed amendment of the member for Kaurna. In those, he explained to me that it is the AEC that actually receives the material and they need to be able to implement the processing of the application for registration on the poll.

I asked him again today whether he could provide me with something in writing to provide to the house as to the particulars of that incapacity, and he has done so, and I have provided it. I will just repeat that there have been at all times briefings available and the commissioner himself and/or his deputy have made themselves available for briefings. I do not know how many have taken that up. I know of one because I was in it, but that is something that is available at all times.

Mr BROWN: I have a question of clarification for the Attorney. Is the Attorney now saying that she is unable to provide to the house any information from the state Electoral Commissioner, rather than the commonwealth, outlining what exactly was the nature of the discussions that he had with the commonwealth regarding this foreshadowed amendment, which was interpreted by him, and he gave his interpretation to the commonwealth, and they then gave him advice?

Can we get something from the state Electoral Commissioner letting us know what the nature of his conversations were? The Attorney has told the house that she has requested such a document from the Electoral Commissioner and yet she has been unable to provide it. This is a letter from the AEC, not from the state Electoral Commissioner.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Throughout the debate on this matter and in fact even the development of the bill, we have had conversations with the Electoral Commissioner. Simply a letter from him saying that it is not practical for us to be able to do this did not, in my view, translate to an adequate explanation to the house from the party that is responsible for doing the job of receiving and processing enrolments for voting. That is the AEC, so I particularly asked Commissioner Sherry here to provide me with something from the AEC because they are the party that actually do the job.

I did not cross-examine him as to exactly what questions he had put to the AEC to make that inquiry, but I think you will see from the tenor of the response from the AEC that they have a close working relationship—he was complimentary of it, I think, in that letter—and so I had no reason to suggest that there was something inappropriate by the commissioner here in South Australia. He acceded to that request, having indicated to me that he had had discussions verbally with him but that he would get that information. He has provided it and I have no reason to doubt that, and I reconfirm that it is open to the opposition to contact the commissioner. He has made himself available and will do so.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I was wondering whether the Attorney could advise the committee on whether or not she is aware that the state Electoral Commissioner contacted the Australian Electoral Commission via any written correspondence, or to the best of her knowledge was that all done verbally?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: To the best of my knowledge that was all done verbally, and that is why I had asked that there be something in writing.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Given the nature of the information in the correspondence between the Australian Electoral Commission and the South Australian Electoral Commissioner and the specific reference to the fact that it is technically possible to implement the proposed later enrolment mechanism, as evidenced by the fact that it does exist in other jurisdictions around the country, at any point did the government have a conversation with the Electoral Commission of South Australia regarding the provision of additional resources to facilitate the implementation of this amendment, given it is technically possible?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There has been discussion of resources, and I have referred to it in the debate. If the Leader of the Opposition might like to have a look at my earlier contribution, it will indicate that there are a number of areas of reform that were going to cost money, and there were also the COVID circumstances to be considered, and that would cost extra money. In fact, I think I even advised the house, on rereading my notes from 26 August of the Hansard,that there is a mid-year budget proposal for some extra funding. So some of these already cost money, and they are in the process of occurring.

Recommendation 1, which is the basis of the amendment that has been proposed by the member for Kaurna, is, Leader of the Opposition, your amendment, not the government's amendment. Of course, if they would have inquired of either the Electoral Commissioner here and/or the AEC as to whether it was possible to pursue that amendment, then that is really a matter for you.

I made that inquiry to be satisfied whether there was any impasse or incapacity on behalf of the government, and I have provided that information to the house. This is not a proposal of the government: this is a foreshadowed amendment of the opposition, so I would have thought you would have at least had the courtesy to ensure that the member for Kaurna contacted the AEC to find out if it is practical.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am grateful to the Attorney for providing the committee with a copy of correspondence to her from a statutory officer, on which she is basing her position on a government amendment. Of course, in the past we have not been so lucky to be furnished with copies of correspondence to the Attorney-General regarding bills that have come to this house. Of course, I am specifically referring to correspondence from the Chief Justice about the establishment of a Full Court in South Australia, where the Attorney kept her own counsel very, very close to her own chest on that to make sure she gave herself the maximum opportunity of ramming that through the parliament and not hearing any voices to the contrary, let alone that of the Chief Justice. But what would he know? What would the Chief Justice know over the opinion of the Attorney-General?

The CHAIR: Member for Lee, I am just going to bring to your attention the time of evening. Following your question, we will report progress.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Perhaps I can leave the Attorney with this question, and she can ruminate over it until we return on this at some point tomorrow: it is curious, is it not, Attorney, that despite the opposition moving more than 50 amendments, you would only think to pick up the phone and, in your own words, have a verbal conversation with the Electoral Commission, asking them for specific advice about why it would be too hard and too expensive to implement the opposition's amendment with regard to enrolment on the day. Why did you not ask for his view on any of the other proposals which were put in this bill, whether it be by the government or by the opposition?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Clearly the member was not listening because that is precisely what I have done.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

At 23:59 the house adjourned until Wednesday 8 September 2021 at 10:30.