Electoral (Electronic Documents and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 7 September 2021.)

Clause 1.

The CHAIR: The house resumes in committee. We are still on clause 1, and I have in my notes three questions thus far from the member for Kaurna, one from the member for West Torrens, two from the member for Playford, two from the Leader of the Opposition and one from the member for Lee.

Mr ODENWALDER: I rise to ask a few questions on clause 1. I do note there was some lengthy discussion last night about the contribution of the AEC to this debate. My question is: can the Attorney provide advice on who else was consulted for this bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Let's be clear about this. I have only consulted the South Australian Electoral Commissioner in respect of the capacity for the accommodation of an enrolment option up to polling day on which he consulted the AEC and provided the information. We have not consulted generally on the bill. It had come to my attention via the Electoral Commissioner here in South Australia that it was the AEC that actually needed to facilitate such a proposal; therefore, he obtained the information, but we have not consulted the AEC directly.

In relation to the original bill, which has been through the system and been dismissed in the other place, I recall writing to every member of the parliament and all known registered political parties at the time. Those who were consulted in addition to the Electoral Commission itself were various academic commentators, and I will refer to some who responded. I will not repeat all the political parties because they would be known to the member and all the members of parliament.

Those not represented here in the parliament were Mr Avery Hilditch for the Child Protection Party; Associate Professor Haydon Manning, Flinders University; Professor Dean Jaensch, Flinders University; Emeritus Professor Clem Macintyre; and Mr Antony Green. The member might recall that Mr Green came and gave a briefing to the parliament in relation to reform generally, and I have appreciated his indication of support in relation to a number of these meritorious advances.

Those who provided a submission to us included the Child Protection Party. They were in support of the corflutes ban, in support of the OPV, and raised some concerns about some of the fees and some aspects of pre-polling. The Local Government Association, as you know, supports corflute bans—and we have already dealt with that through the local government legislation reforms—so they have already got rid of them for their own elections and sought to extend the ban to local government elections, which we have done.

University of Adelaide Professor Clem Macintyre, on behalf of three academics—Professor Lisa Hill, Dr Jonathon Lauf and Dr Glynn Evans—provided a submission and indicated partial support. He raised the issue about newspaper advertising and amendments to the itinerant voter provisions, which we picked up. He did not express a view on a corflute ban. He opposed OPV and sought the establishment of a parliamentary committee.

The National Party of Australia provided partial support. There is no sitting member of the National Party in the parliament at present, but their party, of course, under the registered parties, were provided that. They supported a corflute ban, opposed the OPV and raised some issues in relation to the other practices. The Animal Justice Party SA supported most of the amendments and opposed OPV. The internal consultation, which we do not provide the memorandum of advice on, is from the Electoral Commissioner of SA, the AGD Royal Commission Response Unit and the Office of Local Government, all of which are public sector bodies. I think that covers the matters.

The CHAIR: My attention has been brought to the state of the house. I am counting, and I see that there is not a quorum present. Please ring the bells.

A quorum having been formed:

The CHAIR: I just remind members that, when the bells are ringing, once they are in the chamber they are not to leave the chamber while the bells ringing. We have a quorum. The member for Playford.

Ms Bedford interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

Mr BROWN: The Attorney has indicated to the house on a number of occasions that the genesis of this bill is the review conducted by the commissioner into the 2018 election campaign. My question is: are there any provisions in this bill that she can point to that have come from the suggestions of anyone else other than the Electoral Commissioner?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Could you just repeat the beginning of the question again?

Mr BROWN: The Attorney has already indicated to this house on a number of occasions that the genesis of this particular bill is the review into the 2018 election, which was done by the Electoral Commissioner. Can she point to any provisions of this bill that were suggested by anyone other than the Electoral Commissioner?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In relation to the original bill, OPV and corflutes were both extraneous to the report done by the Electoral Commissioner. I will check whether there are any other aspects. I thought we had actually clawed back to what were the principal recommendations of the Electoral Commissioner. We will go back and check just in case there are anything.

Some of the amendments may be consequential upon recommendations made, but I have not done that exercise of making sure that every clause relates to a recommendation, but there are four or five significant tranches of reform in this which are recommendations out of that report. This is the bit we thought was going to be non-controversial.

Mr ODENWALDER: If I understood the Attorney's previous answer, the consultation was conducted in relation to the first bill—we will call it the first bill of the two. Can you clarify then when exactly that consultation was undertaken, and whether in fact any consultation with any of those parties has been revisited since the failure of that first bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I can advise that on 27 July the 2020 bill went out for consultation. The consultation period was July to August 2020. I will just check the dates on this bill—no, no specific consultation. There is nothing new in this bill that was not in the old bill. I can clarify that. The telephone-assisted voting aspect was separate from the report. It was his recommendation but it was separate from the report.

Mr ODENWALDER: I am not intimately familiar with the first bill. You are saying that was an addition in the second bill, and if that is the case was that particular aspect consulted on more widely?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It was expanded in this bill for the reasons I think I have outlined. Initially, telephone-assisted voting was really for people with a disability. He identified a major problem at the last election in being able to get overseas voters' votes back via a postal vote. Literally thousands were eligible and only hundreds got back in time, therefore it was recommended that it would apply to that, and he has expanded that further obviously because of COVID.

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, given that there are 40 clauses and a number of amendments, and I have you down as having one question yesterday—

Mr ODENWALDER: No, not me. I can guarantee it was not me, sir.

The CHAIR: My apologies. I stand corrected. Obviously, I will allow you a question now, member for Elizabeth, but given how involved this bill is and will be during the committee, I am going to apply the standing orders and restrict questions to three per member.

Mr ODENWALDER: Given that this is my last question, I wonder whether the Attorney could first of all just clarify something she said earlier, which is that all registered political parties were consulted? I will put that to one side for second, I just want to clarify that was indeed the case.

Following from that, how was the decision made about who to consult? What was the methodology used by which you decided who should and should not be consulted? It seems to me that a fairly narrow class of people and organisations was consulted. For instance, were the Law Society and other such bodies consulted?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I cannot recall specifically having discussions with the Law Society on this matter, but I do recall writing to all political parties—their registered secretaries or chair registered in South Australia—and there are quite a number of them, not all represented here in the parliament.

I also remember signing letters with a copy of the draft to all members of the state parliament, upper and lower house. Obviously, there are Independents in this parliament, and I certainly felt it was important that they all be advised because it is all going to affect them.

Political parties obviously have an interest because they are also responsible usually for the development preselection, paying for supervision, regulation, etc., of candidates of those political parties. So it is important that they understood what was going to be happening. I was not involved in the direct consultation with any of those political parties, other than the Australian Labor Party. I think there were several meetings, but the meeting I was involved in was in relation to the funding reforms, which relate to another bill that is before the parliament.

There are certain academics, as I think I have listed, who show a direct interest in relation to electoral matters. I have to say this is not a type of law that has a lot of interest from average citizens, to be frank. It is obviously very interesting to people such as us in this chamber, but I would not call it a barbecue stopper in the sense of things. I still think it is very important reform, and obviously for our political process it is very important.

My adviser has just confirmed to me the SACAT response in respect of the amendment to section 113 of the Electoral Act. As proposed in this bill, they come into the process to assist with the false and misleading advertising enforcement, if I can put it that way. I had a letter from Judy Hughes on that matter indicating the importance of her tribunal being independent. Obviously, it may well need resources to add to that responsibility that they would have.

I think I explained during the course of the debate that the practical difficulty in being able to determine these matters and issue a judgement, or whatever the edict was going to be as to any retraction, for example, or publication of further material that might be required by the Electoral Commissioner has really been a challenge both in the envelope of electronic information conveyance and during the course of the election, especially during pre-poll periods where there is so much other work to be done by Electoral Commission personnel. Delay is sometimes experienced in people having a speedy response to a complaint in that area, so we definitely had some consultation with SACAT on that matter.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Mr PICTON: My question in relation to clause 2, which is obviously the commencement and says that the act comes into operation on a day to be fixed by proclamation. If the bill passes, what date does the Attorney have in mind for the proclamation and commencement of this act? Has the Electoral Commissioner given any particular deadline by which that would need to happen to be in place before the next state election for this to be implemented?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Firstly, we have consulted with the Electoral Commissioner all the way through in relation to the progress of these three bills. To answer the question, if the parliament passes the bill and whatever new initiatives are to be advanced through that, that the proclamation occur as soon as practicable. The Electoral Commissioner has certainly conveyed that to me in relation to these initiatives and the funding variations that are foreshadowed in another bill.

The training of staff, the implementation of the planning for changes that are accommodated by this, is something that he would like to get on with fairly quickly. I assume that has also been conveyed through the consultation that the opposition have had—if they or their representative have taken up that opportunity. I cannot recall any specific aspect other than training was a matter that was of consideration.

In funding as well, because there would need to be training offered to political parties—when I say 'training', I mean the information sessions as to what interpretations, for example, would be carried out by the Electoral Commissioner for the new rules—as soon as practicable, in short.

Mr PICTON: It has not really answered the second part of my question in terms of whether any particular dates have been identified by the Electoral Commissioner in which this would need to come in to enable it to be in place before the state election. I presume a proclamation in mid-January would be too late for the Electoral Commissioner to implement this before the election.

I seek guidance from the Attorney on whether the commencement of this act will have an impact upon the next state election and that timing—given the close proximity between us debating this and when the election is held—and when the latest possible time for that could be proclaimed and the Electoral Commissioner be able to get all those measures in place, including that training, for this to be active before that election.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, I repeat that I have not been given a specific date. The commissioner is aware, though, that we have sitting days until November with an optional week, so clearly, unless this matter is dealt with this year and concluded by this parliament in the positive—that is, the advance of this bill—then it would not be progressing at sometime in January. But, no, the Electoral Commissioner has not given me any dates.

Mr BROWN: The Attorney has indicated to the house that the commissioner has advised her that, should the bill pass, there is still time to implement all the provisions in the bill before the election. Is the Attorney aware of any formal planning that has been conducted by the Electoral Commissioner over how long it would take to implement individual parts of this bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not specifically, but that was canvassed quite at length during the estimates committee. It may not have been the member for Kaurna, but somebody was asking questions about it. I thought it was the member for Kaurna actually.

Mr Picton: They were very good questions.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am sure they were very good questions. I just make the point that he has been down here to the parliament and that there were some questions certainly asked about that in relation to process. He has certainly not indicated a date to me, some sort of cut-off point, although obviously I am not sure what the Australian Labor Party have done in their inquiry with him. There has been no indication to me that there is some kind of deadline point, but I know that he is aware that the parliament's scheduled time will conclude in November or possibly December.

Mr BROWN: Will the Attorney undertake to provide to the house advice from the Electoral Commissioner advising the house how long the commissioner will take to implement the various aspects of this bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I can ask him that between the houses, but again these are matters that I would have expected the opposition would have raised with the Electoral Commission. But, again, he has made himself available and continues to make himself available if the members have any questions in that regard.

At the moment, he has said, as he confirmed in estimates, that he is preparing for two elections in between some smaller ones he is obliged to undertake. Again, I think he referred to these in estimates—the state election in March and/or April next year and of course the local government in November next year. He knows that is ahead of him.

Mr PICTON: Has there been any preparation or training or work done on the implementation of these measures prior to their passage by the parliament?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: By the Electoral Commissioner? I do not know what preparation he has already required to be done, but I am advised by him that he is preparing for next year's election, whether there is any component of these. He has certainly given advice, as you know—it is all in his report—about what he thinks should happen. He has identified the weaknesses of postal voting in the 21^st century, when we have snail mail and all sorts of things like COVID. We have accepted those recommendations, and you have a bill before you to consider whether you to do.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

Mr PICTON: This clause provides:

In this Act, a provision under a heading referring to the amendment of a specified Act amends the Act so specified.

I cannot identify any other acts that are specifically mentioned that would be affected. Can the Attorney confirm whether the amendments in this bill affect any other acts? If so, which acts and how are they affected?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think the member is right; I think the amendments are to the Electoral Act 1985. It is just a standard clause in the preamble to many of these pieces of legislation. In the foreshadowed amendments I have from the member for Kaurna, there does not appear to be any other act that seeks to be open. I am not sure you can do that anyway. It is a standard clause.

Mr BROWN: Given the Attorney's previous answer, was any consideration given to not having this clause in the bill, given that it is superfluous?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It may not be if there were other things that did need to translate into other legislation. We are not at the end of this bill yet. I would simply say that at this point I have not given it any consideration. I have accepted parliamentary counsel's drafting of that as being a usual clause.

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

Mr PICTON: This changes a number of definitions in the act. Firstly, in relation to 'how-to-vote card', it deletes 'a card' and substitutes 'written information', and secondly it removes the definition of 'remote subdivision' entirely. Why is the definition of remote subdivision being removed from the act under the proposal?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: This is consequential to changes to mobile polling in section 77: mobile polling is now called pre-polling and is not restricted to remote areas. So it is no longer necessary.

Mr PICTON: What is replacing that definition of 'remote subdivision' that was previously in the act?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We are now going completely to pre-polling rather than mobile. The whole mobile polling process is deleted, so 'mobile polling booth' is to be deleted and substituted with a 'pre-polling booth'. We no longer need to identify that for the purposes of these remote regions, which we have otherwise talked about as a remote subdivision of the polling areas.

Mr BROWN: I would like to ask a question about the changes to the definition of 'how-to-vote card'. Can the Attorney explain what the impacts would be of this change of definition and also whether there is any impact to the section on false and misleading material?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think on the latter, no. In relation to the former, obviously we now have information provided electronically, so we no longer have all information on a card. Some of that is in electronic form.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

Mr PICTON: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Picton-2]—

Page 3, lines 15 and 16—

This clause will be opposed.

This amendment to oppose this clause is to retain the power of the Electoral Commissioner to promote voting at a polling booth on election day. This provision was added into the Electoral Act under the previous government. It is based on equality of access, particularly about access to information, so we can provide an electoral system that encourages the greatest number of people to vote with the same information available to them.

We accept that there are many reasons why people cannot vote on election day, but the opposition's position is that, unless there is a compelling reason to vote beforehand, there should be an encouragement to vote on election day. We know that it is certainly seen as a great festival of democracy that we have in Australia and in South Australia. People are widely celebrating now with democracy sausages at polling booths across the state. It is also fantastic for our local schools and community groups to get involved and make sure that people know that there is an election on and that that people know where in their local area to go and vote.

We see keeping this clause, to encourage the Electoral Commissioner to promote voting at a polling booth on election day, is important to make sure that we continue to encourage people to use their democratic right on election day and that they will have the greatest possible breadth of information before they vote at their local polling booth on election day. Of course, the other clauses would remain that would enable them to vote by other means if they were unable to.

In addition to saying that, I ask the Attorney: is this function being removed by the deletion of this clause, or is the promotion of voting by election day slated to move to a different person? Is there another body that would be promoting voting on election day other than the Electoral Commissioner? In her view, what is the exact practical effect of deleting that clause from the bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Clause 5 I think is very clear and consistent with the recommendation from ECSA in their election report. It specifically removes the provision, which was put in by the former government, that the Electoral Commissioner is required to encourage people to vote on election day.

This was a very strong position of not only the Australian Labor Party but the former commissioner Kay Mousley, who I think was probably the commissioner at the time it was introduced. But we are in the 21^st century and we are in COVID. Even if you did not think this was a good idea before, we are now in a COVID circumstance in the 21^st century.

I make this point: I do not think there is any basis for saying, on the one hand, that people have a right and opportunity to vote, yet somehow or another we are going to tell them they have to sit and listen to all the information about an election because they have to vote on election day. It is just a nonsense. This is just not recognising the democratic right of people to vote and vote when it is convenient to them and, in particular, in a COVID situation, where the obligation to turn up on election day, especially if there are vulnerable health circumstances, is outrageous.

We completely agree with the Electoral Commissioner on this. The effect of this clause is to remove that antiquated obligation, which is frankly inconsistent with democratic principles and which arguably is something that is just back from last century. The Australian Labor Party have pushed it for a long time and they have introduced it in their time in government. The Electoral Commissioner does not agree it should stay there, certainly not in COVID, and neither do we, and that is why we are moving it.

Mr PICTON: It is interesting the Attorney is using COVID as a reason to move this amendment which, as she herself has noted, was suggested before COVID, so I am not sure how COVID is the reason why this amendment is now being promoted. But I would ask her, for her to come to this house and say this is so important for COVID, has she sought any advice from SA Health? Is there any expert health advice she is relying upon for her advice to the parliament today? Very clearly in her answers earlier to the parliament, in relation to questions from the member for Elizabeth, SA Health was, to my knowledge, not listed as one of the organisations the Attorney consulted with.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PICTON: Yes, that's right. Why was that not the case if not, or does the Attorney have some other advice she is now relying upon for the view she is professing to the parliament today—that it is somehow essential for COVID reasons that the Electoral Commissioner not promote people going to polling booths to vote on election day?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member is quite right: this was a recommendation pre COVID by the commissioner, so he thought it was a good idea to get rid of it in the first place. I am making the point, though, that during COVID it is even more important. Have I consulted the Minister for Health? No, but if the member is alert to all the things that have been happening through COVID, he will know that we have had elections in other states and our electoral commissioners confer with other electoral commissioners. There have been reports of investigations into how we conduct elections, including pre-poll opportunities from two to four weeks out before an election in other states, to enable us to manage the circumstance.

If the member has not read it, I invite him to look at the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia report of the 'Inquiry on the future conduct of elections operating during times of emergency situations'—it was the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, June 2021, in Canberra—to name one of the areas of reform that has been tried and tested already in elections in Queensland, Western Australia, New Zealand and the Northern Territory, where they have had to deal with this difficult issue. I accept the advice of the Electoral Commissioner and I hope the parliament will as well.

Mr PICTON: So is it the view of the Attorney that she is putting forward that people should not vote on election day or at a polling booth because of the risk of COVID?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We think that people should have the right to vote when it suits them, particularly if they are in a vulnerable circumstance and they do not want to be out with crowds on election day. They want to be able to access alternate and earlier voting options and we have always thought that they should have the democratic right to that. The Electoral Commissioner supports that. The reports of other agencies and other elections, including three Labor governments who have gone to the polls during COVID, have supported this and I would ask the parliament to consider it favourably.

Mr BROWN: My question to the Attorney is: is the Attorney in receipt of any advice from SA Health that has been provided to the Electoral Commissioner specifically on the conduct of South Australian elections and the impact of COVID-19 on the same?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have said that several times. The Electoral Commissioner has.

Mr ODENWALDER: Further to that, and given the Attorney's previous answers, has she had any conversations, formal or informal, with any other member of the Transition Committee, for instance, or the State Controller, concerning the conduct of the coming state election?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, not at all. I do not have any conversations with people who are on the Transition Committee. I do not sit on it. I do not have a role in it. The Electoral Commissioner, under the statute here in the parliament, is the independent commission that is responsible for the conduct of elections. The commissioner in particular and his senior people, including Mr David Gully, who has been very much available during the course of these reforms, have provided that advice and I am confident in it and I have appreciated it.

Mr ODENWALDER: Did any of the persons or parties consulted with, which the Attorney previously outlined, express any specific concerns about this particular clause and what were they?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am being advised no, but if there is something that we find we will advise it between the houses.

The committee divided on the clause:

Ayes 23

Noes 19

Majority 4

Clause thus passed.

Clause 6.

Mr PICTON: This appears to delete that the Electoral Commissioner may, by notice published in the Gazette, declare a particular subdivision to be a remote subdivision or revoke such a declaration. With regard to these particular subdivisions, what have been declared remote subdivisions in the past? Are they particular locations or are they particular electorates? Do you have a list of those, for instance, that at the previous election would have been relevant subdivisions?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think the member is just inquiring what remote subdivisions currently exist, if any. I think there are some still but they are being removed in this clause. I will undertake to get that between the houses. I do not have that here.

Mr PICTON: Thank you. What is the practical effect of removing this? Is it that essentially previously there had to be a declaration under this clause to enable a pre-polling booth to happen or is this about remote voting and what will be the impact now and does there have to be any particular declaration for where those locations will be if the act were passed?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I have explained before in detail, we are going from mobile booths to pre-poll booths. To the best of my knowledge, the mobile booths have gone to all the settlements in the APY lands and did up to and including the last election. As to other areas, I am not particularly familiar with that. They will have a pre-poll access under the new regime and so all this becomes redundant, for the reasons I have already explained.

Mr PICTON: What will be the impact upon mobile polling booths? The Attorney mentioned the APY lands as one area, and I think most of us would be familiar, in terms of our own electorates, with aged-care facilities having mobile polling booths as well going to them. Will they no longer be mobile polling booths and, if that is the case—presumably we are stilling going to provide such a service to people—what will be the new legislative arrangements that will be in place for that type of voting?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I say, it will simply go from mobile booth voting to pre-poll booth voting. As the member recalls, at estimates the Electoral Commissioner indicated that he had no intention at this point of any reductions or changes. There may be changes depending on the availability of a school, for example, as a polling booth on election day, but he has not identified any areas of reduction to the current service that is provided. That includes mobile polling services, which will become pre-poll.

Mr ODENWALDER: Given the Attorney's previous answers, can she share with the committee what groups in remote communities themselves were consulted about this change?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: At this stage, I think the question is: are there any electoral subdivisions or people within them who were individually consulted? None by me. These are matters that were on the recommendation of the Electoral Commissioner.

Mr ODENWALDER: So no specific consultation was undertaken in relation to this particular amendment, on top of the consultation you spoke about previously?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Correct.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

Mr PICTON: My understanding is that essentially the Attorney is seeking to change from advertising in newspapers 'generally throughout the state' to 'on a website' throughout the state in relation to where the polling booths are. I think the Attorney, in her second reading contribution and summing up, basically outlined that she does not think young people read newspapers, so it will no longer be necessary to advertise in newspapers. What other manners of advertising are envisaged for the regulations? Why is the government not proposing to give discretion to the Electoral Commissioner about advertising options beyond a website that is now proposed to be in this revised section 18?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: This is directly from a recommendation of the Electoral Commissioner.

Mr PICTON: That may be the case, but that was not really an answer to what I was asking, which is why we will not have the discretion of the Electoral Commissioner about advertising other options beyond a website. If the Attorney is refusing to answer that—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: I'm not refusing to answer anything.

Mr PICTON: Well, you didn't answer the question at all. Why is there no discretion about advertising other options beyond a website? In terms of the website that is being proposed in the amendments, what will be the requirements of that website and will there be accessibility for people with disability? Will that be defined anywhere in the regulations or elsewhere?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: This specifically provides for 'in any other manner prescribed by regulation'. This is in relation to the polling places that are ultimately identified as a place to vote. I note that there is no amendment on this aspect of the electronic versus printed advertising foreshadowed amendment that the member has not raised in this clause, so I am not sure where he is coming from in this regard.

I would have thought that this is completely uncontroversial. There is a later provision in relation to publication of information in either printed country papers or online. I think I understand the argument that the Australian Labor Party are running there, but I do not think there is anything else I can add. This is what he is proposing.

Mr BROWN: My question is to the Attorney. This clause was put forward, you say, by the Electoral Commissioner. Has an analysis been done by the Electoral Commissioner of the media consumption of those people who did not cast votes in the election so as to make sure that those who are unaware of polling places are properly served by the provision of the publication of the information? In other words, is it correct the assertion that seems implicit in this particular amendment, that those who did not cast votes in elections do not read newspapers?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not think it suggests that at all. I am not aware of any modelling, surveying or investigation that the Electoral Commissioner has raised. I think the implication of the question is: were there people who did not vote because they could not find a polling booth because they did not see it in the Advertiser? Not that I know of.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will preface my question with some comments about the wording of this clause:

on a website determined by the Electoral Commissioner and in any other manner prescribed by the regulations

Other than the reference to the Electoral Commissioner, this is exactly the same clause that we have seen this government roll out in bill after bill after bill to remove the requirement on government agencies and other statutory authorities to advertise in printed publications, in newspapers circulated throughout the state.

It is clear that there is a view from the government that they do not value the benefit of printed advertisements in newspapers either of statewide circulation or specific circulation in regional communities across South Australia. This raises the interesting dilemma for a voter about how they would find the information they would otherwise get from a printed advertisement about the location of a polling place. According to this clause, there will be a website maintained by the commissioner—presumably the Electoral Commission of South Australia website—or perhaps some other temporary website established for the purposes of a particular election being run where this information is going to be held.

My question is: how does somebody become aware of that website and web address so that they can access it? There seems to be this assumption from the government that merely having a website with information on it means that South Australians will instinctively, intuitively, become aware of that website and know how to access it, including its web address. It is farcical.

Sure, The Advertiser may only reach on a smaller consumption day of the week approximately 100,000 purchases, which is of course a smaller number than who reads it, but on a Saturday, on an election day, far more people read that Saturday edition of the Adelaide Advertiser, and in the preceding week of course far more people read the Sunday Mail on the Sunday or the Sundays leading up to election day.

That is nothing to take away from the regional newspapers, including those that serve your electorate, Chair, and those other regional electorates around South Australia. What the minister proposes to do here, what the Deputy Premier thinks is a good idea, is yet a further contraction of the capacity of South Australians to inform themselves of the opportunity to vote. I can completely understand that the government might take the view, 'Sure, we're going to print advertisements. We'll make sure we do what we've always done.'

The thing that South Australians have become used to for decade after decade is that either on the day of the election or in the days leading up to the election we can rely on the fact that there will be printed advertisements in the Adelaide Advertiser, in the Sunday Mail and in other newspapers circulating throughout the state. They are used to that and can always have a look to see where their polling place is going to be. I can understand if the government says, 'Yes, we'll continue to do that, but we're going to do websites as well.' That is not what this does and that is not what the government has sought to do in a lot of its amending legislation during this parliament.

The first one, of course, the most egregious one, particularly for regional communities, Chair, you might recall, was the government's so-called simplify bill, which was not reducing red tape for the community of South Australia: it was reducing red tape for the government—removing the requirement for ministers and their agencies to advertise key information or decisions from newspapers either circulating throughout the state or servicing regional communities, including declarations by the Country Fire Service and the State Emergency Service.

No longer, for example, thanks to this government, will there be a requirement to print advertisements about the fire danger season. No longer is there a requirement to publish information about state or local emergencies from the SES. Now we see this minister continue the trend by removing the requirement to advertise really important information that goes to the absolute heart of people's capacity to best inform themselves about where to vote.

I realise that is a lengthy preface, but my question is: with the removal of printed advertisements or advertisements printed in newspapers circulating throughout the state, how will South Australians become aware of the website, and the web address of that website, by which they can go and gain access to this information now?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Firstly, can I say that the opposition has foreshadowed amendment No. 7, which deals with the same issue but specifically in relation to clause 12. It is the same issue, and it has been foreshadowed. I do not know why the opposition have not put an amendment to this clause complaining about this aspect of this. This is not a question about whether something is online or in a country newspaper.

Instead of saying that there is to be an advertisement in a newspaper circulating generally, i.e. The Advertiser—I do not know of any other statewide papers; I suppose The Australian is a statewide paper, it is an Australia-wide paper—that would offer that, this proposal is to substitute on a website determined by the Electoral Commissioner—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —and in any other matter prescribed by the regulations. I am advised by the commissioner that, as to the specific question of the website and where they find that, there is a one-month advertising campaign in the lead-up to the election starting, as announced by the commissioner for this next election, on 22 January, and the information about what is available on the website is on all the bus stops, in their advertisements and in their campaign in relation to that in the lead-up to the election.

So, yes, there is significant information that goes out. It may be that the Electoral Commissioner determines that he still puts it in The Advertiser and he puts it in social media and he puts it in other electronic form and he does some profiles in relation to social media platforms.

Mr Picton: It doesn't say that. It says based on what the regulations say.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am just putting to you that that is why it is a matter that he can present. Later, in the foreshadowed amendments, there is reference to this control over how it is to be done as described only by the Electoral Commissioner. That may be an option. I have often said in this place that if you have a good person who is able to competently undertake their role, that is fine. I would not have any problem trusting Mr Sherry to undertake his job competently. He has already demonstrated his capacity to do that in the various elections he has been involved in here and has undertaken his role competently.

I have never seen a situation where the terms of reference, and what is prescribed or not, are to be done by an independent commissioner who does not have the supervision of the parliament. The whole idea of having a regulation is so that it is this parliament that can have some supervision over that and a capacity to challenge it. I anticipate from the opposition's indication that they are looking to change the prescription by regulation to enable the flexibility the commissioner is seeking, which he is prepared to sign up to under the umbrella of the protections of the regulation laws, rather than to be determined as appropriate by him.

The commissioner has presented that position to us. It does not stop him continuing to advertise in any kind of print or social media that he suggests. Obviously, it seems to me that if there is a regulation in relation to this area it may include 'on the advice of an Electoral Commissioner'. I do not think there would be any harm in adding that, but I just remind members of parliament that that then reduces the scrutiny of the parliament. In any event, that may be an option we look at down the track, but it is not even before us in this clause. I do not know why, but anyway that is fine.

Mr BROWN: Arising out of the Attorney's previous answer, she has obviously indicated her great confidence in Mr Sherry, as we all have. She has raised this concept of this rogue electoral commissioner who is off doing their own thing and who the parliament should not have confidence in. I want to ask the Attorney: are there any other clauses in the bill that the Attorney is introducing as a way of checking the power of rogue electoral commissioners in the concept she has just flagged with the parliament?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think that is a nonsense. What I am suggesting is that the foreshadowed amendment of the opposition, that is, the medium by which there is a publication of this material, is to be determined, 'considered appropriate by the Electoral Commissioner'. It is the opposition introducing that concept and not us.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That is just a bogus argument from the Deputy Premier, made deliberately to obfuscate the point we are trying to make here: that is, that currently we have a legislative prescription requiring that advertisements must be placed in newspapers—must be placed in newspapers.

What clause 7 seeks to do is delete 'by advertisement in a newspaper circulating generally throughout the state'. That is being removed by the Attorney, that is being deleted, and it is to be substituted with 'a website'. Then we hear from the Deputy Premier that what she is doing is, in fact, enhancing parliamentary scrutiny by saying that if we have a good electoral commissioner there will be a set of regulations that may or may not go further than just having a website.

Of course, that then raises the questions: where are the regulations and what do they say? Have they been drafted yet? The answer, of course, is no, because what will an electoral commissioner do when they are working out how to conduct an election and advertise polling places? They will work out how much money they have to do it and what they think is the most effective way within that limited amount of money to advertise it. What is the cheapest way to do things? Put it on a website: not take out an advertisement, a half-page or a full-page advertisement in the paper about polling places. That is very expensive.

So we now have a regime where we have lost the legislative requirement to advertise in a newspaper. It has been substituted by a far cheaper way of advertising. Let us all remind ourselves what we should be in the business of here, and that is giving South Australians who are entitled to vote absolutely every opportunity to vote. Restricting access to information about where they can go to vote is not consistent with enhancing people's opportunities to vote. It just is not. The Attorney might berate us for moving an amendment in one area or another; I think the member for Kaurna is now fixing that. If she wants us to fix the other deficiencies in the bill, then we look forward to doing that here.

But I do not understand why this government continues to run this campaign against newspapers here in South Australia, either those circulating generally throughout the state or those servicing regional communities. It is absolutely clear that to give South Australians the best chance of understanding how they can go about casting their vote, where their polling places might be and which ones are suitable for them, we enhance and not reduce the level of advertising.

The Attorney still has not answered my question, other than saying, 'We might advertise the website on a bus stop.' I do not know how many buses service your electorate, Chair—not an Adelaide Metro hotspot in my recollection as transport minister, not too many services are provided there. I am not sure what it is like in the member for Stuart's electorate or the member for Frome's electorate, the member for MacKillop's electorate, the member Mount Gambier's electorate—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, I had a few, and they were to be even fewer if the government had had its way. However, that is not a sufficient explanation to the parliament about how we can be assured that our constituents are going to have the best opportunity to be informed about where their polling places are. If the Deputy Premier and the party she represents will not stand up for country newspapers, will not stand up for other newspapers circulating generally throughout the state, then the Labor opposition is happy to.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will take that as a statement. I think there was one other matter raised. It was so long back in the presentation that I cannot remember what it was, but I was listening intently. I think I am hearing that there is a foreshadowed amendment coming to deal with the deficiency of the current tabled amendments, and that is fine.

I place on the record, as I have said throughout the debate, that I love newspapers—I read them, the country and city newspapers—but not everybody does. I accept that there are alternate sources of information, and the Electoral Commissioner is asking to add in there the provision for the website and the regulation power obviously allows for alternates.

The new information was that question in the middle: have there been any regulations drafted? As I understand it, there are drafted regulations on the funding bill and corflutes bill because there have been specific requests by the parties, including the representative from the Australian Labor Party, to have those and to be able to review them before we debated the bill. It is not the usual course. It has not been asked for in this bill, and so we are just following the usual course. We will do the regulations as soon as whatever gets through the parliament is passed.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My third question on this is: given the night is but young, can the Deputy Premier furnish us with some draft regulations with regard to this bill so that we can have a reasonable assessment about whether at least this provision will be sufficiently canvassed by regulations, let alone all of the other legislative amendments the bill seeks to effect?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Clearly, I cannot, as I have just indicated that we have not prepared any draft regulations for this bill, but if there is an opportunity for that to be progressed, as I say, the representative who has the carriage of this matter in the other place, to the best of my knowledge, has not asked for some consideration of what the regulatory provisions will be under this bill.

That work has not been done. It is an unusual situation to be done. If the member is now asking it be done, I will see whether there is a possibility for that to occur and whether that may be able to be undertaken between now and dealing with this in the other place. But I just make the point that it has not been asked for to date. Again, I do not know whether there have been any requests made to anyone else, but as I have the carriage of the bill, it seems a little unusual to request that at 5.40 halfway through the committee stage, but we will do what we can.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Halfway through? We are just beginning.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That is what I am saying. We are halfway through. We have already had two days, I think, on this bill. That is what I am counting—three days.

Ms COOK: Just inquiring whether there were any recommendations or any feedback given to the Attorney throughout consultation that this was an 'and' kind of arrangement, so that the best practice in order to enfranchise as many people as we could in the voting system in South Australia would be to advertise in the newspaper and on a website in order to provide maximum reach.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: If the member looks at the first line of the substitute clauses, it says 'on a website determined by the Electoral Commissioner and in any other'.

Ms COOK: Just to confirm then, the Attorney is saying that we would continue to advertise all of our polling places etc. in a newspaper and on a website.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: This is the wording recommended by the commissioner. I am just indicating to you when you ask whether it is to be 'or' or 'and', it has made provision to allow for 'and' and that is precisely what is there.

Ms COOK: In relation to the options that were offered to you and suggestions that were made, were there any other means by which it was suggested that you should be advertising using any other 'and' platforms like 'and Facebook' or 'and Instagram' or any other types of platforms?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have left that open. I refer to my previous answers on that.

Mr PICTON: I have filed an amendment, which the Attorney was practically begging me to file to address the deficiencies in her legislation, so I have now done that, which is very similar to amendments Nos 7 and 8 I have already put on the record. I move:

Page 3, line 23—Delete 'prescribed by the regulations' and substitute 'considered appropriate by the Electoral Commissioner'

Hopefully, that explanation clarifies any handwriting discrepancies. The Attorney said earlier that what is being proposed here is to implement what the Electoral Commissioner recommended, and she said that very definitively. It is worth going back to see what the Electoral Commissioner did recommend in his report because, surprise, surprise, it is not actually what the Electoral Commissioner recommended. If you look at page 43 of the report from the 2018 state election, which of course has been sitting around for years now, recommendation 5 is:

That the Act be amended to remove the obligation for the Electoral Commissioner to publish public notices by advertisement in a newspaper circulating generally throughout the state, so that the notices can instead be published on ECSA's website or by any other means the Electoral Commissioner deems appropriate.

This is very different from what the Attorney has in her proposed bill, which is 'on a website determined by the Electoral Commissioner and in any other manner prescribed by the regulations'. So here we have the Electoral Commissioner saying very clearly that the Electoral Commissioner should be able to advertise it by any means they deem appropriate, whereas the Attorney-General is saying by any other means that the government of the day deems appropriate by issuing regulations. That is a very different proposition and that is why we have moved this amendment.

I do not know whether this straw man argument was about some rogue electoral commissioner. We have faith in the Electoral Commissioner. We have faith in the fact that the Electoral Commissioner will make the appropriate determination as to where these things should be advertised to make sure that people are appropriately notified.

What we have concerns about is that the Attorney is proposing that the government of the day should issue regulations, which they could do right before the election, that would have no ability for parliamentary oversight because parliament would have been suspended or prorogued and it essentially would be up to the government to determine what other matters would be prescribed by regulations.

This amendment, and the subsequent amendments that we have to the legislation, give the Electoral Commissioner the ability to determine which are the appropriate ways in which things should be advertised. It seems very clear that the government want to control this, whereas I am sure that the Electoral Commissioner would make the appropriate decisions to make sure that the public could be best notified by whatever means available to him or, in the future, her.

The CHAIR: The member for Kaurna has moved an amendment. Attorney, do you wish to speak to that?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Only briefly again to say that there is no sinister move here in relation to the translation of what is raised in the report. The Electoral Commissioner has been through this bill. He has accepted that this is consistent with what he wants and he has not raised any concern or desire to me or to my advisers that he would prefer to have this drafted in terms that have been indicated by the opposition. If the member has some indication that that is the case—

Mr Picton: Yes, the report.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, then, I would ask him to convey that information to the Electoral Commissioner—

Mr Picton: I will send you a copy of the report.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have the report, thank you, and I have read it.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We have had the discussion. Firstly, if there was a circumstance where that was inconsistent, bearing in mind that the Electoral Commissioner has been very involved in the development of this bill as to its application to what he has sought consistent with those recommendations, there has been no indication to us that there is a change. You have introduced a change. To the best of my knowledge, it has not even been with any consultation with the Electoral Commissioner, so I would ask you to inquire about that.

As I said earlier, it may be something that would be achievable by regulations that have in some way had the input of the Electoral Commissioner. We have no desire to remove him from all those different options I have referred to, which have been repeated again by the member for Hurtle Vale, that he may consider as appropriate not just on polling days but on all the other clauses that you referred to as to how the public get their information to prepare them for election day.

I simply indicate at this stage that I would propose that the clause stand and that the amendment being proposed by the member be opposed. But if it was a circumstance where, between the houses, the Electoral Commissioner came to me and said, 'This is something that we can live with or I am happy to be accommodated by some change which involves some consultation process with me as the Electoral Commissioner,' then I am happy to have a look at it. But, to date, this is just brand new.

Ms BEDFORD: In light of that answer to that question, Attorney, could this be something you could approach the commissioner about rather than wait to see if he approaches you? If what the member for Kaurna is saying is true and the words in that report are accurate, why can you not go and ask in the interests of a really good bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think just before we go on, because there are a number of amendments being proposed by the opposition we do not agree with, on the information before us at present the Electoral Commissioner has agreed with what is in the bill, not what is being proposed. What I am indicating, though, is if any member produces an amendment to a bill and wants to propose it, then of course they are welcome to get sufficient evidence or support for it.

The Electoral Commissioner, of course, will be following this debate and may already be in the process of presenting to me some argument about why we should continue to oppose it. I do not know the answer to that. I cannot research and do the work for or read the mind of other people who want to move amendments. I am giving an assurance to the house that what is before you in this area is entirely consistent with what the Electoral Commissioner has sought, in what he has reported in his report. He has been active in the development of this bill and he has not raised any question to it. If there are other members, including Independents, who have a view—

Ms Bedford: Thank you for including me. That's lovely.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes—including Independents, who have a view. The member may have missed the debate earlier where I wanted to give assurance that all members of political parties, including Independent members, were written to about this bill so that they would have the full information back in 2020 about what was being presented to them.

But I cannot argue for or look at—and then even be accused of, 'Well, you did not ask this or you did not ask that.' I cannot read the minds of people who want to present an argument for a change. I welcome a consideration of that. I am happy to take that up. At this stage, therefore, I foreshadow this is the first one that comes in relation to this aspect, which is suggesting a change. It has not been raised by the Electoral Commissioner with me as a change that he would embrace. So I am indicating to the house that, if there is some evidence that comes in the meantime upon presentation of that, of course I will have a look at it between the houses. But, at the moment, I oppose the amendment.

Ms BEDFORD: I just want to follow up on that. If all these other amendments are about something that is written in the report and has not been picked up, to me that is a concern, because if the Electoral Commissioner is missed in what he said in his report when reviewing the legislation, I am a bit concerned that we are not all on the same page.

It is no secret. I oppose a lot of what is going to on down here today. I am very concerned about electoral processes and care very much about democracy and the value of the vote. I will work with whatever you give me, whatever boundary I am given—I do not care. But I think in the interests of making sure we have a very good bill, it is beholden on all of us to make sure we do come out with the best possible bill and, if there are some misinterpretations of wording between the houses, that this is sorted out and not just left in the air so that somebody has to do something else. I am sure all the members on this side of the house will follow that up and I would be really reassured if I knew you were doing that as well because then I could be assured it was going to be fair.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I thank the member for her contribution. I want to assure the house again in the member's presence that I have done all that. I have done all of that and I would hope that any member who wants to present an alternate argument or suggest that there is some weakness and go to the Electoral Commissioner—and I repeatedly said he is making himself available to be consulted with—they can do so. So I have done that. I want to reassure the member I have done that. I am bringing to the parliament what has been through the sieve of the Electoral Commissioner and I would invite any member to take that offer up from the Electoral Commissioner.

Ms Bedford interjecting:

The CHAIR: Thanks, member for Florey, for that information.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I support the member for Kaurna's amendment because, of course, it accurately reflects what the Electoral Commissioner has recommended to the parliament. I do not denigrate the Deputy Premier, but I will say that she has repeatedly provided an assurance that the specific wording of this clause accurately reflects what the Electoral Commissioner wants, but it is different from what the Electoral Commissioner recommended in his report.

We cannot be clearer than that. I do agree with the Deputy Premier that we find ourselves in the fortunate circumstance of having a good Electoral Commissioner, but we cannot always assure ourselves that that will be the case. We are legislating the parameters of electoral law, not for the personalities who may be involved in administering it.

I cast members' attention to the fact that it is we here in this place who set the strictures and the standards about how elections are to be conducted here in South Australia. I am not quite sure how much joy those three people up on the tapestry would have had if electoral reform were left up to whatever version of the Electoral Commissioner was in existence during the 1890s. We are the ones who determine what the electoral law is, whether it is based on the advice of a statutory officer or not.

Unfortunately, we are in the invidious position of having a report that is more than two years old versus what the Attorney tells us is her specific interaction with the Electoral Commissioner, the details of which we do not have. We have shown already there is an inconsistency. There is a remedy to this, but I would urge all members that we should tread carefully when we receive assurances from the Deputy Premier about what the Electoral Commissioner wants when it seems to be at variance with what is in his actual report.

Given how much faith the Deputy Premier has put in the Electoral Commissioner, I do not see that the member for Kaurna's proposal is unreasonable. It is not doing anything that derogates from what the Attorney's original amendment in the bill seeks to achieve. I would strongly encourage members to support the member for Kaurna's amendment.

Mr PICTON: I would like to reiterate that the Attorney was saying, 'If you have some evidence of what the Electoral Commissioner wants in relation to this clause.' Funnily enough, we do because the Electoral Commissioner wrote a report in 2018, and it has been sitting with the Attorney for a number of years now, and recommendation 5 is in stark contrast to what the Attorney has proposed to this parliament.

On the one hand, the Electoral Commissioner said 'or by any other means the Electoral Commissioner deems appropriate' and, on the other hand, the Attorney says 'and in any other manner prescribed by the regulations'. Decision made by the Electoral Commissioner; decision made by the government of the day—it could not be more stark in terms of who makes that decision. It is very clear what the Electoral Commissioner was seeking because he made that very clear to the parliament in his annual report.

Our proposed amendment seeks to exactly implement what the Electoral Commissioner recommended to the parliament and to make sure that the Electrical Commissioner has that ability to decide based on what he believes, independently from the government of the day, is the best way to promote polling booth locations.

Therefore, I think it is important that we listen to that advice and that we not leave this, and many other things the Attorney is trying to seek to leave up to regulation, up to the regulation of the government of the day, particularly when they very well could implement regulations after the parliament has finished at the end of this year and we cannot do anything, there is no oversight whatsoever and there is no ability for regulations to be disallowed through either house of parliament.

I think it is quite telling that the Attorney is saying that there are no regulations she can circulate, that we still have to do that work and that we are going to look at that down the track. I feel quite confident that the Attorney, if she wanted to, could have had that work done, could have presented it to the parliament and said, 'Here is the bill and, just so you are completely assured, here are the regulations we want to implement at the same time.' The Attorney has not done that.

The Attorney is going to leave it up until after the bill has passed, she hopes, for that work to happen, and that could well happen after parliament is finished and there will be no ability for oversight whatsoever. This is one area of a number in this bill where I propose that it would be far more prudent that the Electoral Commissioner have the ability to decide, rather than the government of the day, and it so happens that is exactly what the Electoral Commissioner wanted and said so in his report.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As only just one matter to that, I just remind members that section 18 of the act, which relates to polling places, sets out obligations as to what the Electoral Commissioner may do and what he or she must do. Subparagraph (iv), which is being referred to here, in addition to all the others, sets out a mandated notice via advertisement in the newspaper circulated generally throughout the state of the position of the polling places for the district. It is that mandated provision which is all that is changing.

The Electoral Commissioner can spend his money—he has a fairly wide range on this—to do it in a number of different places if he wishes to. This is what he has asked be removed, this piece, to enable him to have that discretion. He is saying, 'I want to be able to put this on the website as the principle place or area,' but that does not stop him from publishing in a local paper or a little newsletter, if it is on a remote community, for example, or on social platforms, as I have referred to before. It does not prevent him from doing that. I just ask members to appreciate that in what we are actually changing here.

This is not a situation where it is either able or designed to exclude what he can do, but we are really talking about what he must do. With that, as I have indicated, I am happy to look at anything further between houses on this matter, but at this point I have his proposal supporting what is before you, as in the bill not in the amendment.

The CHAIR: The member for Kaurna has moved an amendment to clause 7 and we will deal with that now.

Ayes 21

Noes 21

Majority 0

The CHAIR: There being 21 ayes and 21 noes, as the Chair I have the casting vote, and I give my vote with the noes.

Clause 8.

Mr PICTON: I move:

Amendment No. 2 [Picton-2]—

Clause 8, page 3, lines 24 and 25—

Delete all of the contents of lines 24 and 25 and substitute:

8—Amendment of section 25—Printing of rolls

Section 25—delete 'or the Minister'

In relation to clause 8, my amendment No. 2 would retain the power for the Electoral Commissioner to be able to print the roll, if required. The 2014 election report and recommendation 2 recommended that the act be amended to either remove this section or remove the reference to the minister directing them to be printed. This amendment will still allow the Electoral Commissioner to direct that the rolls be printed. Whilst it may not be necessary on a regular basis, there are a few instances where a printout will be useful. Despite dramatic advances in technology, there is always the need for redundancy in the ability of a paper electoral roll that would support this.

It would be unacceptable if we adopted an entirely digital model and then there were issues in the technology, or issues in terms of power or the like, that would lead to voters being unable to cast their votes. A paper backup could prove vital to avoid this situation. We certainly agree with the removal of the provision that the minister should be able to print the electoral roll. I am not sure why that was ever in the Electoral Act to begin with or whether or not it has ever actually been used.

To enable the Electoral Commissioner to print the roll seems an appropriate measure. Therefore, we promote this amendment to make sure that the Electoral Commissioner should be able to retain that ability in the future.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I remind members that section 25 states: 'A roll must be printed whenever the Electoral Commissioner or the Minister so directs.' Our proposal is to delete it completely on the basis that the roll is now electronic. That is why we are removing it altogether. I think I understand why the member suggests that it stay in there, but we are now going to leave in: 'A roll must be printed whenever the Electoral Commissioner so directs.'

It is currently held in electronic form, and I suppose if somebody receives it, as many members of parliament have, they can print out sections of it if they wish. It does not stop there being a printed version or portion of it if the user of the roll wants to do that. We are proposing, consistent with the recommendation, that we just delete it altogether. It does not mean that it cannot be done. So that is why it is there.

Mr BROWN: Can the Attorney furnish the house with information about whether section 25 has actually been used at any stage?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am sure it has been over the years. If the member reads the recommendation in the report, its recommendation on the printing of the roll states:

That the Act be amended to remove this section or delete reference to 'or the Minister so directs' as the rolls are available in electronic form and prepared for close of rolls for any relevant election.

I am sure it has been previously, but it is now all electronic.

The CHAIR: Member for Playford, just a point of clarification: this is the member for Kaurna's amendment, and you are quite at liberty to ask the Attorney questions—

Mr BROWN: I am asking her about the clause not the amendment.

The CHAIR: When we get to the clause, because we will deal with the clause as it is printed depending on what happens with the amendment.

Mr BROWN: Okay.

Mr PICTON: I might just respond to what the Attorney said, and I thank her for reading out the recommendation of the Electoral Commissioner because, once again, it highlights that the amendment that the opposition is moving is entirely consistent with what the Electoral Commissioner recommended in his report.

Two different options were proposed. The Attorney has gone with deleting it entirely, whereas we see that there might be a requirement in the future for the Electoral Commissioner to do it. But we wholly agree with the Electoral Commissioner's recommendation that the words 'or the minister' be deleted, because it is hard to envisage a situation in which the minister would need to or should be able to order a printing of the electoral roll.

The production of an electoral roll in a printed form does seem to be envisaged as potentially necessary, and the fact that the Electoral Commissioner put forward those two different options in his report I think would make a future redundancy available, even in the case of an electronic roll. Hence I moved this amendment to the house, that we keep that ability and go with the other option that the Electoral Commissioner put up rather than the one the Attorney-General suggested.

Ayes 19

Noes 19

Majority 0

The CHAIR: There being 19 ayes and 19 noes, the vote is tied. As Chair, I have a casting vote and I give my vote with the noes.

Amendment thus negatived.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 18:02 to 19:30.