Bills

Electoral (Electronic Documents and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 8.

The CHAIR: Prior to the dinner break, amendment No. 2 on schedule 2 was not agreed to. We now come to clause 8 as printed. Are there any questions?

Mr PICTON: Thank you for reminding me of the tragic loss of amendment No. 2 on your tie breaking vote. I will not reflect.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: You can't reflect on a vote.

Mr PICTON: Well, the Chair did.

The CHAIR: Thank you for reminding me, member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: Yes, that is right. Attorney, in your explanation earlier, I think you said, essentially, that the roll is electronic and does not need to be printed anymore. If the rolls no longer need to be printed, what is the reason why they need to be closed?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Of course, we do regularly look at legislation that is redundant, essentially, and this is one of those occasions. That is since 2014, I might say.

Mr PICTON: I think the Attorney might have misunderstood my question. If the electoral roll no longer needs to be printed, as the Attorney has said previously, why is there a need to have a closure of the roll where, after a certain date, people cannot join the roll anymore?

My understanding is that the Attorney's proposal and amendments would still have a date on which the electoral roll would close and no further people could be admitted to the roll. My understanding is that back in the day that would be when the rolls would be printed, when they would be distributed, but we are now finding out that there is never a particular date when they are printed because it is an electronic, always evolving roll. Why do we have to close the roll? Why could we not just keep it open for new people who need to enrol through the process?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Just because the roll is now kept in electronic form does not mean that there is a process that has to be undertaken for people to apply, which they can do online, but you still have to apply. Someone has to assess it, someone has to collate that data, and it goes through that system. Just because it is electronic does not mean it is still a job that needs to be done and approved. It is not a question where you just go on and press a button and you are automatically on the roll. There is still a process. That is why we have seen an indication from the AEC that this is not something that they can accommodate as a process when they are preparing for a federal election.

I am not the arbiter of how much they do and what they do, but we have had electronic recording of our data for years. In 2014, this recommendation came from the Electoral Commissioner—the former one, I think it was Ms Mousley.

Mr BROWN: I will try to ask the question I was going to ask the Attorney previously, before the tragic demise of the amendment.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

Mr BROWN: It is always tragic to see an amendment of any type fail. It does not matter what its merits are. This particular section obviously removes the ability to have on demand a printed roll produced. The question I asked earlier was that this is a savings provision of sorts. A physical roll must be produced. Can the Attorney inform the house when the last time, according to either her knowledge or the adviser's knowledge, this particular section was actually used by a minister or the commissioner?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We do not know the answer to that, but it has been electronically recorded for a number of years. I think members would be familiar with the fact that there are products that you can purchase, obviously, accessing the electoral roll, which has been electronic for a number of years. How long since somebody has actually printed out the entire roll? I have no idea. We can make that inquiry between the houses and provide an answer.

Mr PICTON: Following the Attorney's previous answer where she said that basically the reason why the roll had to be closed was that people needed to process it, why is it the case that in Queensland there can be enrolment up to the day before election day there; in the ACT, as I understand it, the roll never closes; and in the Northern Territory people are able to change their enrolment on the day? It seems that in those jurisdictions there is an ability for that change and that processing to take place. Presumably, the now digital roll that the Attorney is talking about would make that easier. Is this just a question of staffing or a policy decision for why that could not be the case in this instance?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: You have made it very clear during the course of the debate that it is acknowledged that there are some jurisdictions that have moved to this and have some cooperative arrangement with the AEC, whatever that may be. What the AEC are saying, if you read the letter that I provided to the parliament yesterday, is they are making it very clear to the customer here, namely, ECSA, that this is not feasible this cycle for this election. They make that very clear.

Clearly, work has to be done to accommodate a whole state coming into that process. That is what they are telling us, and I cannot offer any more. Obviously, this is a proposal coming from the Australian Labor Party. Whilst we respect the proposal, we do not agree with it. As I have indicated, and I have spoken at length about this proposal, there is work to be done that has to be done and, as I understand it, at some cost.

As I have said right from the start, we identified areas of, we think, important reform—pre-polls, telephone voting, etc.—which we think had merit. As it turned out, in a COVID circumstance it is now imperative that we can advance. There are costs associated with even those things, so we have had to make provision for those in the budget. You have raised questions in estimates about those initiatives, and I have indicated there are more coming as a result of COVID and COVID planning, extra staff required for all the physical requirements on the basis that we are not completely out of the woods—potentially in March or April next year.

That is where we are at. There are extra costs. We have not had those costed because we understand that is a provision. We have identified what we think is achievable. I think the AEC make note in their letter, also, that they are undertaking a whole lot of reforms themselves, presumably as a result of amendments to the commonwealth act. We are in their hands in that regard. I hope that assists.

Mr PICTON: Just to correct the record, the Attorney says that this is some proposal from the Australian Labor Party: it is actually a proposal originally from the Electoral Commissioner in his report. In recommendation 1 he says that the act be amended to enable eligible electors to enrol up to and on polling day.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

Mr PICTON: I am just correcting the record.

Ms COOK: Did the minister have any feedback at all throughout the consultation process regarding whether or not this would disadvantage any particular age group or demographic?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Only the suggestion that was raised by the children's commissioner, and I have referred to that at length. I am not sure whether the member for Hurtle Vale was in a position to be able to listen attentively to exactly what I was presenting at that stage. In short, I identified that the six days to two-day provision is a complete red herring; there will be a full month of advertising campaign.

In relation to this other aspect, it has been raised. I have identified the actual nine people she has listened to. Of all the quotes I read out from their response to the survey on that, there had not been any which actually identified their right to be able to vote up to election day as being critical to children at all. Nevertheless, she raised other important initiatives that she thinks would be of assistance in helping the education of children during that period, and encouraging them to have a voice, have a vote.

I do not make any criticism of that, but I make the point that, apart from her letter, yes, there has been reference to that. Each one of the members of the house on the other side have read it out. I have not had other people complain about it; there have been no other people who have written to me, that I am aware of, who said, 'This is something that must be done.'

It was considered by the Electoral Commissioner in his 2019 report. I have explained the reasons why that is not physically practical and provided the documentation from the AEC to confirm that.

Clause passed.

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

A quorum having been formed:

Clause 9.

Mr PICTON: Attorney, does the amendment to change clause 9 make any practical difference or is this tidying up the wording? Was this recommended by the Electoral Commissioner in the report or has this come via some other process?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that clauses 8 and 9 are reflective of the fact that the roll is now electronic. I point out that the 2014 election report Recommendation 2 refers to the matter we have just discussed, as to the recommendation there. Recommendation 3, relates to 'Inspection and provision of rolls' and that the act be amended to remove the reference to 'of the latest prints' of the rolls if section 25 is removed under the previous recommendations. So it is essentially consequential on what we have already dealt with.

Clause passed.

New clause 9A

Mr PICTON: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Picton—3]

Page 3, after line 27—Insert:

9A—Amendment of section 29—Entitlement to enrolment

Section 29(1)(a)(iii)—delete subparagraph (iii) and substitute:

(iii) has their principal place of residence in the subdivision and—

(a) has lived at that place of residence for a continuous period of at least 1 month immediately preceding the date of the claim for enrolment; or

(b) lives at that place of residence and satisfies the Electoral Commissioner with evidence that complies with any requirements of the Electoral Commissioner they will live there for more than 1 month from the date of the claim for enrolment; and

This amendment would allow someone who has changed their principal place of residence to change their enrolment prior to completing one month of residence if they can satisfy the Electoral Commissioner that they will live there for more than one month from their claim of enrolment. This could be in the form of a lease, a tenancy agreement, a statutory declaration or any form of evidence approved and accepted by the Electoral Commissioner. This provision seeks to ensure that everyone can vote in the electorate in which they live. It is a fundamental principle, and I am sure everybody in the house agrees with it.

The current system has been working well, but it does not have the flexibility to deal with people who have recently moved into a house and will be living there for some or all of the upcoming term of parliament. Importantly, the amendment will leave it up to the Electoral Commissioner to choose what kind of evidence will provide sufficient proof that a person will live somewhere for at least the next month.

I am sure that if you ask somebody in Rundle Mall tomorrow what they do when they move address, they will probably say they will change their bank details, their utilities and maybe their electoral roll. I do not think many people realise that, technically, under the law you have to wait a month that you have been in the new residence before you can change it. Perhaps this is an area in which many people update that before the month, and this goes through to the keeper in lots of ways.

I think it is appropriate that our laws make sure that people can vote where they are going to be living in the long term. If people can demonstrate that they will be there for at least a month, then it is appropriate that they will be able to be enrolled at that address.

Mr BROWN: I would like to speak briefly in favour of the amendment. I would like to thank the member for Kaurna for moving this amendment. I think it is a noble aim to update our Electoral Act to take account of people's changed circumstances. As I am sure many of us in this place do, I meet people from time to time who have moved into the area but have either not updated their electoral enrolment or only just updated their electoral enrolment. I think it would be most appropriate that those people are able to choose their members at an election, those people who are prospectively going to be in a particular area. That way, members can be more responsible to those people who will be in the long term living in the areas they represent.

Also, I think it would be something that would lead to better decision-making about members in their local areas and the state as a whole. Whilst we are here looking at the act, and trying to make changes to the act to allow it to be more responsive to the situation we find ourselves in and the way people live their lives at the moment, I think this sort of amendment is exactly the sort of thing that we should be putting in, rather than some of the other things the government has put into this bill.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Section 31A, under division 2A—Itinerant persons, sets out the circumstances by which a person may apply for enrolment under this section. It provides that the person (a) is in South Australia and has lived here for a continuous period of a month prior to the date of the application of enrolment and (b) qualifies for enrolment under certain sections.

This amendment obviously makes amendments to those provisions so that itinerant electors who fail to vote or who are outside SA for more than a month do not lose their itinerant status as itinerant electors and are no longer required to give notice of their intent to leave the state for at least a month. Reference is made to this from the 2018 election report at page 16.

This amendment is also purporting to facilitate late enrolment, so it is how we might deal with this for the itinerants or itinerant persons. To ensure that as many South Australians as possible can participate in state elections, particularly young electors, a recommendation for enrolment up to and on polling day was made in the election report, and that is acknowledged. However, due to the cost and complexity of this, this recommendation was not included in this bill.

Advice has since been sought from the Electoral Commissioner—and you have the letter to review, members, that I tabled yesterday—regarding enrolment on the day. The federal Electoral Commissioner, in short, stated that the Australian Electoral Commission would not be able to, at this time, provide the necessary support to action and progress the volumes of enrolment transactions that would be likely should the recommendation be progressed.

The processes and procedures for the AEC to support this proposal, including the transfer and integration of data from the processes and systems, would require significant planning and systems changes to ensure that it would be introduced properly and they would be severely restricted in their ability to do so for the following reasons: one, they are currently within their election window where the Prime Minister could call an election at any stage; and, two, they are presently required to implement significant operational and system changes stemming from recent federal legislative changes. Accordingly, I indicate that I will be opposing amendment No. 3.

Mr PICTON: I will just respond to a comment from the Attorney in relation to the amendment. She points to section 31A in relation to itinerant electors as a potential way in which people could be covered. I think that misreads what we are attempting to do here, to cover people who are not what you would define as itinerant, which I understand means to move from place to place, but people who have moved from one location to another and are seeking to be in that second location for a long period of time and who want to make sure that they can enrol in time for the next election for where they are going to be living.

I do not see any particular reason the Attorney has outlined, including reiterating the AEC advice on a completely separate issue, that would mean that this could not be in place and that we could not have the ability for people to be enrolled in the place where they are living, have moved to and intend to be for some time into the future.

Ms COOK: I just want to point out that I think some of the issues that are important are actually being lost here. I think what is important is that everybody has a right to enrol to vote and that is no matter who people are and where they are and where they are living. We talk about people who are itinerant, for example. People who through no fault of their own end up without a place to call home. They need to identify somewhere that they can call home in order to be enrolled on the electoral roll.

I think we have to look at the big picture here. This bill in its entirety should be about avoiding the disenfranchisement of people who are at risk of being so. This whole bill needs to focus on who needs to have a say, who does the parliament affect the most by the decisions that it makes. We are waiting for the new Census numbers, but we have 6,000-odd people on the last Census numbers in South Australia who did not have a place to call home.

These people have to be able to trust somewhere someone enough to put their digs down and enrol to vote. Actually, I could not care what those rules are around that, to be quite frank, because the decisions we make in the parliament, as we have seen the decisions that the government can make separate to the parliament, affect those people in an inversely disproportionate way.

With what has happened recently to people who are homeless without somewhere to call home, they want to have a say about that, and to have a say about that they have to do it at the ballot box. Irrespective of how we set those rules, our focus must be on young people whose future it is we affect, newly arrived people to Australia who commit to become part of the country they have chosen and love, and people who are at risk because, through no fault of their own, they have nowhere to call home. No matter how this happens, it needs to be in a way that means those people get to have a say.

I support what the member for Kaurna is saying and will continue to predicate this argument and remind the Attorney that we come from privilege. We have not had that choice or lack or choice. We have not been at risk of being disenfranchised like people who do not have a place to call home. So, however this happens, I would like the Attorney to put that at the front of her mind along with young people, people from other backgrounds, people who have chronic health conditions, mental health conditions—people who need to have a say. However that happens, I would ask the Attorney to put that at front of mind and behind goes the political stuff.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think the member for Hurtle Vale makes a very good point. It is important that our itinerant persons, for whatever circumstance they find themselves in, have an opportunity to be able to participate in the voting process, and that is the whole purpose of what is already in the act. If the member were to have a look at the whole division 2A, which is in there for itinerant persons—I would have to check back and see when it actually came in—this is an issue that was dealt with some time ago. It is already in the act.

It used to be easy for Australians to vote wherever they were driving around in their caravan or whatever, but it is more difficult and more complicated to be within the jurisdiction of the state if they are doing the same thing. Let's face it: we have a very large population of people who are on the road, not necessarily homeless but interested in travelling. and they are out of the jurisdiction for significant periods of time. The whole of division 2A sets out a process that enables them to qualify. They have to qualify in certain ways. For example, and I read this before:

(1) A person may apply for enrolment under this section if the person—

(a) is in South Australia and has lived in South Australia for a continuous period of 1 month prior to the date of the application for enrolment;

and (b) qualifies for enrolment under a number of these other sections. So we already have a process to recognise those circumstances, particularly the one the member has suggested, that is, suddenly finding themselves homeless. The house has been sold up by the bank, they are removed or evicted from a rental property, whatever the circumstance that might be a hardship circumstance like that. So we have that.

This is now an amendment being proposed by the member for Kaurna that suggests the facilitation of the entitlement to enrolment and then we are about to have the entitlement for transfer amendment or making a claim for enrolment or transfer of an enrolment, foreshadowing amendment No 4, to facilitate an enrolment up to election day, and that is not what we are agreeing to. I do not disagree with the sentiment of the matter that has been raised, but that is already part of the act.

The committee divided on the new clause:

Ayes 15

Noes 20

Majority 5

New clause thus negatived.

Clause 10.

Mr PICTON: In regard to itinerant electors, how do they currently appear on the electoral roll?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am not sure I understand the question. Is their name identified without an address; is that what you are asking me?

Mr Picton: There is no further information that is—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am not quite sure I understand the question. Is it to be how they are literally described, just a name?

The CHAIR: We will get the member for Kaurna to repeat the question.

Mr PICTON: In regard to itinerant electors, obviously there is a separate process for their registration on the electoral roll, so the question is: how are they recorded on the electoral roll? How do they appear? Is there a separate element of the roll in which they are kept? Is there separate identifying information that needs to happen in relation to them, or is it merely, as you were leading to suggest, that it is basically the same but without an address?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not know the answer to that question. That is why I was trying to seek some clarification. We will make that inquiry with the commission as to whether they are on a separate roll. I imagine they are a bit like those with a silent address. As members will know, from time to time as members we support people having a confidential address, an undisclosed address. Sometimes it is for protection in a domestic violence situation and things of that nature. How they are recorded or whether they are recorded in a separate electronic list, I do not know the answer to that, but I will make that inquiry between the houses.

Mr PICTON: How is it determined what division an itinerant elector is enrolled in?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think that is set out in the section itself of the current act. That relates, presumably, to section 31A, which provides:

(1) A person may apply for enrolment under this section if the person—

(a) is in South Australia and has lived in South Australia for a continuous period of 1 month prior to the date of the application for enrolment...

You have to have had a place that you did live in. I am assuming it relates to that region. If you have left and you still qualify as being itinerant, presumably it would have been in that electorate. But if it is anything different, I will get that information to you.

Mr PICTON: In relation to the amendments that the Attorney is moving, from my reading, clause 10(1) and 10(3) relate to where people had been leaving the state for a month. That was an element in which they would leave the roll, and that is being removed now. Is it possible, under these new provisions, that an itinerant elector could end up being enrolled as a voter in multiple states? If so, how is that going to be mitigated?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: On the information I have here in relation to that section, I do not think that it relates, although there is a harmonisation provision. Consistent with the concept that itinerant voters do have a chance to have a vote and that they don't get disenfranchised from lack of having a permanent address, I am advised as follows: before the 2018 state election ECSA stakeholder partners from the homeless sector raised concerns during the consultation that by encouraging their clients to enrol as itinerant electors and participate in the election they could be setting them up for failure.

ECSA seeks legislative changes to section 31A(10)—this is the changes we are looking at here of the act—so that itinerant electors who fail to vote at a state election or who remain outside the state for a period of more than one month are not stripped of itinerant status and removed from the electoral roll. Both provisions are inconsistent with the commonwealth legislation, which leads to a situation whereby South Australians who are enrolled as itinerant electors and then do not vote or go travelling are removed from the roll for state elections but continue to be enrolled for federal elections.

This is another case where harmonisation with the commonwealth would be beneficial. This provision is important for grey nomads and other non-overseas travellers who are currently unable to remain on the state roll if they leave the state for more than a month. If this change is made, there will not be any point in requiring itinerant electors to give notice under section 31A(9)(b) of their intent to leave the state and remain outside the state for a continuous period of at least one month. So the amendment in clause 10(1) deletes paragraph (b). So essentially this is to not disenfranchise people who are itinerant but they are actually outside the state for more than a month. That is as I understand it.

Mr BROWN: The Attorney has already indicated to us that the commissioner has had a number of conversations with the AEC regarding parts of the operation of the bill. Is she aware of conversations that the commissioner has had with the AEC regarding harmonisation and how it might be interplayed between these provisions of the state act and the commonwealth enrolment of itinerant voters?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, I am not. They are two separate things in relation to what the entitlements are to vote on the AEC and then what the eligibility or disqualification is for within state voting. Obviously there are attempts to harmonise, as I understand it. Here what we are trying to do is to—because people can fall foul of the state thresholds but still be able to stay on the commonwealth thresholds. So you can whiz around Australia and not be disenfranchised from a federal election, it seems, but itinerants out of states are at risk. My understanding is that we are doing these amendments to provide for that.

I indicate to the committee—because I was asked about the recording on the roll of itinerants—that I am advised that under section 31A(3)(c) is provision for how they are recorded and I will just quickly indicate, for those members who are interested in this, that the Electoral Commissioner will cause the name of the person to be entered on the roll for the subdivision for which the person last had an entitlement to be enrolled; or if the person has never had an entitlement for a subdivision for which any of the person's next of kin is enrolled; or if neither subparagraph (i) nor subparagraph (ii) applies, for the subdivision in which the person was born; or if none of subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) applies, the subdivision with which the person has the closest connection.

Subsection (4) sets out the Electoral Commissioner may, in connection with the operation of subsection (3), include on the roll an address in the subdivision that is taken to be the person's principal place of residence for the purposes of this Act and any other Act or law relating to enrolment under this Act. And then, under subsection (5), the Electoral Commissioner will also annotate the roll so as to indicate that the person is enrolled under this section.

So it appears as though they do actually go in the normal list, they are annotated in some way and they may have a descriptor address there relevant to however they might qualify under that, but that is the process. It is all set out in section 31A.

Ms COOK: I do not know whether the Attorney referred at all to the report done by the University of South Australia in partnership with the University of Adelaide for the Electoral Commission only a few years ago. No, you have not looked at that? I will just tell you a couple of things in relation to itinerant or homelessness and electoral participation because this is what this whole study was about and it is actually pretty recent that it was done. One of the quotes I found pretty poignant was:

That was one of the main things for me, being homeless, you know, the politicians knowing that okay, we are constituents, you know, members of society, the homeless are actually coming out to vote, that my vote matters as much as those people who are working.

That was a 30-year-old fellow who was homeless talking about the importance of voting. It is 86 pages and I do not intend to try to read the whole lot because I am sure we would all have enough of that by the end, but I think there were some really important findings in that. My take on that report is that, irrespective of people's circumstances and where they live and what situation they find themselves in, people are interested in having a participatory role in their destiny and having a say.

It was found through this study of quite a lot of homeless people that in fact, while their voter turnout is relatively low, it is the barriers that are put in place by our society and by those making the decisions that actually often dictate the participation rate of the voter that is homeless, but that is not proportionate in terms of their political engagement and their knowledge of politics itself and how important it is. So if we were to actually listen to those people, I think we would make a much greater effort.

I think, Attorney, you were not sure before about the process of how people identify where they are. My understanding is that you pick a provider, you can pick a person who is providing those services and affix yourself to there as a voter to be able to receive the information and to put the statement that, 'I belong here. This is where I am casting my vote.' I guess the way that homelessness is with people who do not have a permanent roof, that creates quite a number of people who are around the city of Adelaide who are seeking service and shelter and social supports. Attorney, with respect to this particular section, were homeless people consulted?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not believe so, but can I just say this: I am not sure of the report you are referring to, but I thought I had made it clear but, if I had not, ECSA acknowledged that before 2018 this whole question of homelessness and the even inadvertent disenfranchising of these people was an important matter to be considered.

I think since about 2014 we have had provision for itinerant voters, but they considered that it needed to be strengthened. So I am assuming that when they talk about the homeless sector and partnering them in relation to this as stakeholders, we are talking about representatives of the homeless people, which I accept. Therefore, one of the reasons we are doing these clause 10 provisions in the bill is actually to make sure we capture the work they have done in recognition of the very points you make.

What I read out earlier, which sets out the provisions of subsections (3), (4) and (5) of section 31A—Itinerant persons, is the process that you alluded to, and that is exactly what I have just read out, where they can put their last known address, where they were born, where they are closely attached to, and that can be via a service provider or a homeless service, for example.

You are absolutely right. I thought I had read it all out to make that clear. There is a whole section in the act already to recognise itinerants. We are strengthening it. The member for Kaurna's motion is one which is dovetailed into allowing for the whole proposal for registration of itinerant voters and/or transfer of votes up to polling day, and I have explained that that is simply—for everybody, not just for homeless people—not achievable by the AEC at present.

So, yes, we have a law for itinerants and, yes, we are strengthening it. The amendment the member for Kaurna is presenting is really just a part of the package to do up until polling day. I have traversed it many times, but I make absolutely clear that this is simply not achievable for the AEC for this election.

Ms COOK: A question with respect to that enrolment process: is it essential that someone has a last known address in order to be able to enrol or re-enrol and get back on the electoral roll? Do they have to have a last known address?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Either (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv), and if they do not have a last known address where they are entitled to be enrolled they can go under (ii), (iii) or (iv), even to the closest connection, whatever that can be determined as. I assume that can be, for example, via a carer service, a homeless service or a shelter provision, which they may have no legal entitlement to but which they may have some temporary service provision for. It can be care of Shelter SA or of such and such housing co-op or something of that nature. So, in answer to the question, yes.

Clause passed.

New clause 10A.

Mr PICTON: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Picton–2]—

Page 3, after line 31—Insert:

10A—Amendment of section 32—Making of claim for enrolment or transfer of enrolment

Section 32—after subsection (1a) insert:

(1b) If a person makes a claim for enrolment or transfer of enrolment pursuant to section 69(1a), the person will be taken to have made a claim for enrolment or transfer of enrolment in accordance with this Act (even if the claim does not comply with the requirements to be in the manner and form approved by the Electoral Commissioner and given to an electoral registrar).

I remind the committee of recommendation No. 1 from the Electoral Commissioner in his report that was delivered to the government some years ago now:

Recommendation 1.

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

Those are the Electoral Commissioner's own words. This is a bill where the government has claimed to be implementing the recommendations of the Electoral Commissioner's report. However, they have decided to omit the key first recommendation, recommendation 1. This is not recommendation 37—this is recommendation 1.

The government are trying to have it both ways: they are trying to say, 'We've got plenty of time until the next election to implement these changes that we are bringing to the parliament and debating in September before the March election,' but then, on the other hand, they are saying, 'Oh, no, no, no, we can't do recommendation 1 of the Electoral Commissioner because it's too close to the election, too close to implement that one, but all these other changes, we've got plenty of time to do them'. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

This amendment is the first in a series that will allow enrolment or transfers of enrolment up to the close of polls on polling day. Anyone who enrols or transfers after the rolls are closed will be required to make a declaration vote. This acts on recommendation No. 1 from the Electoral Commissioner and already occurs in other jurisdictions. In recent times, the government introduced four electoral bills. Not a single one of those included that No. 1 recommendation of the Electoral Commissioner resulting from the 2018 election.

It is interesting, looking back at comments from the member for Bragg in previous debates we have had in this parliament in relation to electoral bills. I looked back at something she had to say in 2016 on a previous set of amendments that were being raised about the electoral bill after the 2014 election—so 2016, well before the 2018 election. The member for Bragg said to the parliament:

The bill we are currently dealing with, the miscellaneous bill, carries the bulk of the recommendations the government has picked up from the Electoral Commissioner post the 2014 election. In fact, it is about half of what the Electoral Commissioner, Ms Kay Mousley, recommended in her report to the parliament in July 2015. Ms Mousley recommended some 30 reforms in legislation, primarily to the Electoral Act, that she considered were worthy of the parliament's consideration before we advanced to the next state election. I am completely at a loss why it has taken the government until November this year—

2016, remember—

to table a bill, especially as it incorporates only half of the recommendations of the Electoral Commissioner.

So now we are in a situation where we are in September, before the election in March, with half of the recommendations from the electoral report being ignored and the Attorney seemingly has changed her mind. Not only has she changed her mind but the Attorney is the delay. Not only has the Attorney taken several years to bring on this bill but she has waited so long that it is apparently too late to implement the number one recommendation of the 2018 report now, but all the others are fine. When the Attorney was asked about resourcing she said:

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

The letter tabled by the Attorney last night from the Australian Electoral Commissioner, Tom Rogers, to the South Australian Electoral Commissioner, Mick Sherry, said that this change was technically possible but that resourcing was a key risk. Let's be abundantly clear: if the government wanted to enfranchise all South Australians and let them enrol up to election day, they could.

Instead, this government has decided to pursue various pet projects from the Attorney-General that no-one asked for and that were roundly rejected by this parliament. Unfortunately, this is not surprising. You just have to look at the last time the Liberals were in government, when they tried to abolish compulsory voting. This government clearly does not want every South Australian over the age of 18 to be able to vote.

This is a late stage to make this electoral change to the system, but the entire bill is too late. You cannot on the one hand say that in terms of this bill there is plenty of time before the next election to make a huge amount of changes but on the other hand say that we cannot make this change that was the number one recommendation of the Electoral Commissioner.

It is important that this very important enfranchisement of all eligible voters in South Australia proceed. These amendments set out that if a person makes a claim for enrolment or transfer of enrolment under this act before the close of polls, they will be entitled to vote for the relevant district by way of a declaration vote. In practice, this declaration vote will give the Electoral Commission time to verify that the voter is in fact eligible to vote in that district.

It also includes a savings provision. If there were a minor error in the manner and form of someone making a claim for enrolment or transfer enrolment, they would not be disenfranchised. If a person goes to a polling booth and votes, they can be sure that even if there is a minor technical error in their claim of enrolment or transfer enrolment, their vote would still be counted. This will be important when the Electoral Commission checks the entitlement to vote for people under this section.

This set of amendments is a simple proposition. Any South Australian who is eligible to vote can turn up to a polling booth and vote. It might be somebody who has just turned 18. It might be somebody who has recently become an Australian citizen. It might have been somebody who was turned away at a previous election because they were not on the roll. There have been limits in technology in the past that meant it would be difficult for a person to vote on election day, if they were enrolled on the same day, but we do not have those limitations anymore, and jurisdictions around Australia and the world have been allowing eligible people to vote when they turn up.

As has already been mentioned, enough electors to fill an entire state seat enrolled to vote in the last six days before enrolments were shut prior to the 2018 election. We do not know how many people tried to enrol after that point but were turned away. We know that young people were disproportionately represented among those who were not enrolled to vote. There was a record enrolment by young people prior to the marriage equality postal survey four years ago, but still many thousands of young people are not enrolled.

This will give South Australians—all South Australians over the age of 18—the ability to have a voice regarding who represents them. New South Wales, which has had enrolment up to and including election day, saw more than 83,000 enrolment provisional votes at their 2019 election—83,000. Of course, they have a larger population, so in South Australia it would obviously be proportionately less, but we are still talking about well over 10,000-odd people who would be updating or enrolling for the first time here in South Australia if this measure was to be able to be passed.

The Electoral Commissioner thought this change was important enough to make it his number one recommendation in the 2018 report. Unfortunately, this government sought to do the opposite, but this is the opportunity for the parliament to now fix that.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: This is also part of the proposed amendments to facilitate up to election day enrolment, and I think I have canvassed the general aspects of that quite at length. This particular amendment, though, to insert the 10A provisions which allow for enrolment or a transfer of enrolment, actually goes further than recommendation No. 1 of the electoral report suggests. This amendment relating to late transfer of enrolment is opposed for the reasons I have outlined already, but this amendment goes further than the Electoral Commission recommendation and includes transfer of enrolment as well as late enrolment for new electors. The recommendation relates to late enrolment. This adds transfer of enrolment as well. It is just a further feature as to why we would say, as the AEC has pointed out, that they are not in a position to facilitate this.

We can revisit the merits or otherwise of the argument of the member for Kaurna that somehow or other nothing has happened in this space since 2019. There are two things that have happened. A bill was introduced in this parliament last year. It was dismissed; that is acknowledged. At no time since this report has been published has the opposition presented a bill at all. At no time did the opposition raise this as an issue when we debated the bill last time. I do not know: suddenly they might have had some apparition about why they would want to proceed with this.

They were very attentive to questions of pre-poll and other matters that they raised, like being anti removal of corflutes, but this seemed to completely miss the attention of the entire opposition. That is how important it was to them. In any event, it is here and it has been raised late in the piece of the development of this bill—of this second bill—with no inquiry with ECSA or the AEC as to whether they could accommodate it. We have already indicated that we have identified areas of reform that are achievable. Now that we are in a COVID envelope, it is even more significant, and therefore to ask the AEC to do the impossible is just not acceptable to be able to progress this, and we would not impose that when the AEC is preparing for the next federal election. We just would not impose that.

If the parliament determines that it is going to happen and there is more chaos in the election, so be it, but I make the point that this is a very late apparent interest of the opposition. I do not discount it. I just make the point that if they had gone and asked the AEC before they embarked on this new program of not just transfer of enrolment but allowing enrolment up to election day, we might have avoided all this debate. Nevertheless, it is here. I make the point again: for all these reasons, this amendment is opposed.

Mr BROWN: I just want to speak in favour of the amendment and again start off by thanking the member for Kaurna for bringing it forward. I do not intend to too widely traverse the links between the Liberal Party and Trumpian forces in the United States, as I know that is something that has been canvassed very widely in this parliament. In fact, it should be something that is known to all members as it has been canvassed so widely.

As it turns out, when I hear members of the government talk about how they are not actually interested in voter suppression, that they are actually interested in empowering voters and getting people onto the roll, I take them at their word. I think, yes, they are true representatives who want to see more people get on the roll and want to enfranchise people in South Australia. They are not interested in following the line of their Trumpian friends in the United States who meet with James Stevens and other people and figure out ways to suppress voters. They are not interested in that. I take them at their word and I believe them and I know they want to see more people get enfranchised.

Having said that I take them at their word, this is a chance for members of the government to prove that they actually do have noble intentions and that they actually do believe in enfranchising more people. By voting for this amendment, they have the chance to empower people and to enfranchise them, not see them stripped of their vote just because of an administrative problem or the fact that they have moved house. There are all sorts of reasons why people would not be able to vote in the district in which they now live. They should get the opportunity to vote for a member to represent them in the parliament not where they used to live before, when they forgot to update their enrolment, but where they live now.

So I believe members and I say to every single member of the government that this is your chance to vote for a noble cause because this amendment that the member for Kaurna has so nobly moved here tonight enables you to do a good thing. Being members of this government, I know that it is very difficult for you to get opportunities to do good things, but now is your chance, so I invite all members and I encourage all members to vote for this amendment.

Ms COOK: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. It might surprise you to hear that I am supporting the member for Kaurna as well in this amendment. I am sure that those on the other side can remember the Fisher by-election, which I was victorious in—five people, nine votes. I met the five people—how many times? I was and I still am really connected to that community. I have lived in that community my whole life. Being an active member of the community, as many on both sides of our house are, people say, 'You have thousands of people on Facebook. Do you know them?' Well, yes, actually I do know them. People comment and participate in debate and engage in conversation on your newsfeed. Yes, you know them.

On the day of the Fisher by-election, it was bonkers how many people contacted me and messaged me and said, 'I live in the electorate. I have just gone to vote and I have just found out I can't. I thought I could turn up at the polling booth and it would be okay and I could just show my ID and my change of address and it would be alright.' People just do not understand. Well-educated, engaged adults, subjected to nine candidates and possibly 5½ thousand to 10,000 corflutes, on the day thought they could go and turn up and change their address.

If you can prove where you are living and you live there and you are engaged in that community, why can you not vote there? What is the issue? If we have a set-up and technology today that could ensure that you are not voting in two spots and that you are voting where you live, why can that not happen? We can land on the moon. It is not rocket science.

Mr PICTON: I would like to respond to a comment made by the Attorney earlier in this debate, where she said that the opposition had not raised this at any stage in the previous discussion of the legislation. Of course, the Attorney-General was completely wrong. I will give her an opportunity to correct the record before we raise any issues about potentially trying to mislead the chamber, but I can correct that the Hon. Kyam Maher MLC did raise this issue in the Legislative Council and in fact filed amendments and in fact filed an identical amendment to the one we are discussing right here. He filed it on 12 March this year because this bill was only debated in the Legislative Council this year.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: This is this bill, not the last bill.

Mr PICTON: Yes, but you said we never raised this previously.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: This is this bill.

Mr PICTON: Yes. In the previous bill, which was the Electoral (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2020, which was the previous bill that dealt with recommendations from the Electoral Commissioner to which the Attorney tacked on her pet projects of corflutes and optional preferential voting, which was very roundly dismissed by those in the other place, it did not include addressing recommendation 1 in that bill that was presented to parliament either.

The Attorney said earlier, 'How dare you. You are just a Johnny-come-lately to this issue. You have never raised this issue before.' Well, very clearly we have, and I am happy to table or provide copies to the Attorney showing that this was raised in the Legislative Council by filing those amendments. Of course, the Legislative Council—not meaning to reflect too much—never got to the stage of committee because of the various issues with the Attorney's previous bill.

This amendment that we are talking about now we have had on the record as something that the opposition has been raising since 12 March 2021. It is something that has been raised since 2019 by the Electoral Commissioner. The reason why this has not been implemented prior to now is one person and one government's fault, and they are sitting opposite.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: For the benefit of the committee, if the member suggests that it was raised in the Legislative Council a few months ago I am happy to defer to that. What I am referring to is in relation to when we had this debate here. This bill was introduced and debated here in 2020, and it was not mentioned. That is my entire recollection, that it was not mentioned at all. What was raised in the upper house this year, when it came back on for debate and was dismissed, is something that I do not take issue with. I am quite sure the member is correct in that regard.

This report was published in 2019. Apart from complaining that we have not moved this as quickly as it should have been, post COVID coming in we have introduced a bill, we have debated it, it has been in the Legislative Council this year, it has been dismissed, we have issued a new bill and here we are. If it was raised in the dying arguments of the Legislative Council I am quite happy to accept that, but we are talking two years later.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I just make this point: please do not come in here and say, 'Oh, woe is me. This is a terrible government. You have failed to advance this part of the package of reform.' I have explained to you why we have not done it. You can take it or leave it. You do not have to accept it. That is our position.

The AEC have said, 'Don't overload us. We can't do all this at once. We are about to prepare for a federal election, and we can't do it.' If you want to ignore that, be disrespectful to them. I have tried to explain to you what the situation is. They are the ones who have to do the job that we are wanting to pass a law here to implement. They say they can do what we are doing. To add on to them a provision for enrolment, and now a transfer in this amendment, up to polling day is not an achievable thing for them, so I cannot make it any clearer.

Ms COOK: I do understand where the commissioner is coming from in terms of putting this provision in at this particular time, which is after dinner on the night before election day. Why is it possible to do that with the other things? What makes this bit here so different? If you are concerned about overloading the commission, and all the rest, why not hold it back and make some sort of commitment to do it after the next election or debate it after the next election when we are in government?

The CHAIR: I just remind the member for Hurtle Vale that we are actually debating an amendment in the name of the member for Kaurna.

Ms COOK: I understand that.

The CHAIR: The Attorney can choose to make a further comment, which in fact would be her third and final because it is the member for Kaurna's amendment. I will take it as a comment, unless the Attorney particularly wants to comment. No. Member for Kaurna, do you have any closing remarks?

Mr PICTON: No.

The committee divided on the new clause:

Ayes 18

Noes 20

Majority 2

New clause thus negatived.

The CHAIR: Before we go to clause 11, I just have some comments I would like to make to the committee and draw the attention of the member for Kaurna to his amendments Nos 9 and 10. These amendments appear to be consequential on his amendment No. 4, which was negatived. In accordance with Erskine May at chapter 28, paragraph 105, in the online version, inadmissible amendments are described as:

An amendment cannot be admitted if it is governed by or dependent upon amendments which have already been negatived.

Can the member please advise if his amendments Nos 9 and 10 are consequential?

Mr PICTON: Thank you, Chair. That sounds a lot like the script I saw the Deputy Clerk type in before. My understanding is that amendments Nos 9 and 10 are consequential, and I am happy not to proceed with them. I am not sure that this is the usual practice that we have seen in previous debates before.

The CHAIR: Well, we are a team up here at the desk.

Mr PICTON: I am very happy to confirm that and will not proceed.

The CHAIR: Thank you, member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: There was not a need to quote Erskine May or anything like that.

The CHAIR: I appreciate your comments. I just thought it was better to discuss that now rather than when we get that point so we are all clear.

Clause 11.

The CHAIR: Any questions on clause 11?

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: There are now. There weren't before but there are now.

The CHAIR: I do not know if that is quite right, member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: He could have gone home sick, but he chose not to.

The CHAIR: It was not my choice, member for West Torrens.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The member for Kaurna has the call. Questions on clause 11.

Mr PICTON: This clause is in regard to publication of notice of application, deleting 'in the Gazette and in a newspaper circulating generally in the State'. It will be in the Gazette and on a website and in any other manner prescribed by the regulations, which is similar to what we have previously discussed. Why is there again a decision made that there should be a prescription in the regulations for the manner in which this should be published rather than what previously was the case as a newspaper or what was recommended by the Electoral Commissioner as being up to the Electoral Commissioner to determine?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: This is from page 43 of the election report. I am advised that instead of requiring notices to be published in newspapers, they may be now published online. That is the upshot of this commentary. Of course, there is an allowance for other methods to be prescribed in regulations. From page 43 of the election report:

The Electoral Commissioner is bound by legislation to publish certain statutory notices in newspapers, often at considerable expense. As one example, section 18 of the act states that, '…the Electoral Commissioner must, between the date of the issue of the writ and polling day, give public notice by advertisement in a newspaper circulating generally throughout the State of the position of all polling places for the district.'

We have used that example in some previous discussion. The report states:

To meet this requirement and publish the details of all 693 polling booths used at the State Election, ECSA was required to book four consecutive pages in The Advertiser at a cost of approximately $42,000.

Given the high costs involved in publishing notices in newspapers and the prevalence of online and digital media…ECSA—

ECSA, not me—

recommends that the Act be amended to allow the Commissioner the flexibility to publish notices on ECSA’s website and by any other means deemed appropriate, instead of in newspapers circulating throughout the state. ECSA notes that this amendment would align with other jurisdictions such as Victoria, where legislation defines publish as 'by any means including by publication on the Internet.'

I am advised also that the legislation only sets out the minimum requirement. ECSA can still advertise in newspapers as it considers necessary and appropriate and this may include regional newspapers. I refer these comments in particular to clause 7, to which there has been a late amendment attempt; clause 11, which we are dealing with now; clause 12; clause 13; and clause 26.

Mr PICTON: What is in the revised section 41(1)(c) where it says 'any other manner'? What does the government envisage would be the 'any other manners' which might be considered for regulations?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: What I said just then.

The CHAIR: I think that the Attorney's answer was that she will refer to her previous answer, essentially.

Mr BROWN: My question is to the Attorney. Has there been any analysis conducted by the commissioner, or any other agency that the Attorney is aware of, as to what the likely impact is of the reduction of exposure of requests for registration of new political parties by the fact that the paper of record, the Adelaide Advertiser, will no longer need to carry advertisements indicating that these parties are trying to set up in our state.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Sorry, I did not hear half the question or understand it. Could you just repeat it?

Mr BROWN: Has there been any analysis of just how many fewer people will be aware of the fact that parties are trying to register in South Australia by the fact that these advertisements will no longer need to run in the Adelaide Advertiser.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: To the best of my knowledge, no. I do not know of any modelling.

Mr BROWN: Will the Attorney please attempt to get that information and make it available between the houses?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I can ask the Electoral Commissioner if there is anything useful they can add in relation to that but, as I understand it, the question is whether there is any research or modelling to identify the direct effect on the number of electors who may be making inquiries as to whether they have been left out and uninformed about the application for the registration of a new political party. I am not quite sure how they would actually do that but, in any event, I will make the inquiry.

Ms COOK: Could I just clarify that the wording actually drops the essential criteria of placing this in a newspaper. So, if I interpret this right, it is an option that a paper, even a regional publication—is that clarified that that is actually the case that it does not have to be in a newspaper any longer?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The other way around. ECSA can still advertise—

Ms COOK: Can or must?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It can.

Ms COOK: So it does not have 'must have'?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, that is correct. It is allowing for the new provisions, given all the reasons I have explained why and the cost and all the things that have been brought to the attention of the Electoral Commission SA, which is recommending this. However, as I have pointed out, the legislation only sets out the minimum requirement. ECSA can still advertise in newspapers, as it considers necessary and appropriate, and this may include regional newspapers.

Ms COOK: How much exactly does it cost for ECSA to advertise in metropolitan and regional papers for elections? How much does the placement of these advertisements cost in metropolitan and regional papers for a state election?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not have that information with me. I imagine it is in their budget papers for the provision that we have dealt with at estimates, but I just gave you an example, an expensive one, which relates to the publication of all the polling booths. Their indication is that it takes four consecutive pages in the Advertiser at a cost of $42,000.

Ms COOK: Given that the readership of newspapers is generally in the older demographic—and I would expect that we have a combination of an ageing population regionally, poor internet connection in many regional and metropolitan areas, and a low level of digital literacy in the older age group—what modelling was done and what consultation was done, particularly with peak groups such as COTA, in relation to how removal of said advertisements out of the essential newspapers? Let's be frank, if it does not have to happen you are not going to do it. Has there been modelling done and consultation done with these types of peak groups as to the impact on older people with lower digital literacy levels and high levels of use of printed publications, such as their local regional paper and their daily news here in South Australia?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I reiterate that I am not aware of any modelling done. This is a recommendation presented to us in relation to cost and, of course, easy accessibility. I agree with the member—but one minute you are arguing from opposition amendments asking to give the Electoral Commissioner the option to be able to determine what medium he provides information on, and you are telling me that you would rather have him do it than have it by regulation of the parliament, and now you are saying to me, 'Well, you can't trust him to make a decision about what options he considers might be appropriate.'

For example, let's assume that there is a provision of pre-poll services, in the far western part of the state. There might be a pre-poll facility for example, and a polling booth in Ceduna north of the area for those who are from Koonibba and across that northern area. There may be low internet connection, as the member says. There may be limited access to equipment to be able to access the internet. There may be some level of electronic literacy, so to speak, but no access to that medium which, as you say quite reasonably, many of us have the opportunity to access. It may be that in fact the commissioner thinks that the best way to advertise where the pre-poll will be at Yalata or at one of the camps, or anywhere else, would be by some internal newsletter or maybe by a local newspaper. It might be the—I can't remember what the Ceduna Times is called now—intercontinental or something, isn't it?

The CHAIR: It was The West Coast Sentinel.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN:The West Coast Sentinel, that's right, but what is it called now?

The CHAIR: The Eyre Peninsula Advocate.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The Eyre Peninsula Advocate, I am reliably informed by the Chair of the committee. He would know, and I appreciate that.

The CHAIR: I read it cover to cover.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I cannot understand the opposition's modus operandi here. One minute they are telling me, 'We don't want to trust the Electoral Commissioner to make a decision on this,' yet in the last half an hour we have been arguing about not trusting the parliament to do something and the government introducing regulations and letting him do it.

Ms Cook interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think be consistent.

Ms Cook interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order, member for Hurtle Vale!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That is why I think the publication of notice of the applications and the amendments to go with it, which is to obviously raise the question in certain communities, particularly where there might be electronic illiteracy and/or inaccessibility to that medium, absolutely may be the best way to deal with it. That is why it is set as a minimum, and that will then be a matter at the discretion of the Electoral Commissioner, who now for some reason you cannot trust to do anything.

The CHAIR: I might add that I will be reading the new Eyre Peninsula Advocate each and every week on the lookout for election notices.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Excellent—you and me both.

The CHAIR: Indeed.

Mr BROWN: I am sure you will remain in there constantly until election day, Mr Chair. My question is to the Attorney: given the concern that I am sure we all have in this place about the rise of extremist groups in Australia, just as other countries around the world, I wonder if there has been any consideration of the possible security implications of restricting the publicity around the registration of political parties?

Will the fact that there will no longer be a requirement to publish these notices in the newspaper mean that fewer people are likely to see them, and will that mean that vulnerable groups which might then be able to make objections to the registration of political parties will no longer be able to because they will not know that they are trying to be registered?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am not sure that is relevant just to extremist groups. I think the question is: is there a risk? As I understand the reasoning behind this question, if I have it correctly, is there not a risk that people just will not know about the registration of new parties—whether they are good or bad—and be able to make any comment, either supportive or in an objection way, unless they are via a number of mediums and that unless you provide this notice across a number of mediums that that is just extending the risk?

I think there was a bit of cybersecurity in there somewhere, but I did not quite understand that bit of the question. In any event, I think I understand what is being said. What I am saying here is that, in relation to this matter, the Electoral Commissioner understands the significance of what he needs to do in relation to publications. Newspapers alone are not the only medium in which this is done. He is suggesting that there be amendments, but he is making it very clear that even if something is not in the state newspaper it still may be very accessible by these other mediums.

If there is a regional area of interest—say, a political party which is the 'Let's excise the western half of the Flinders electorate to Western Australia' party—and people on the West Coast might have a really big interest in that, it may well be that the Electoral Commissioner takes the view, given the policies pronounced by that party, that it is critical that there be a saturation of information going to that western region of the electorate of Flinders so that the people there have an understanding. It might put advertisements in local papers, it might call public meetings, it may give notices in any way that it considers appropriate.

Please do not present an argument one minute that you trust only the commissioner to do something if it is your amendment but you do not trust him in relation to this. I just find that entirely inconsistent.

Mr BROWN: The Attorney raises the prospect of the commissioner deciding on an ad hoc basis how these individual advertisements are to be communicated to the public at large. She says that the commissioner might make an assessment about the nature of the individual political party and decide where to advertise and in what form to advertise.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

Mr BROWN: I am pointing this out. The Attorney spoke earlier during the committee stage about a rogue commissioner, this idea of a commissioner exceeding their powers or doing things that the parliament did not intend. Surely under those circumstances she can accept that it is better to have a consistent approach across the individual political parties that are applying, rather than the commissioner deciding on a case-by-case basis how and where these advertisements are to run.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will take that as a comment.

The CHAIR: As will I, member for Playford, because you managed to slip a fourth question under the radar then and that is entirely my fault.

Clause passed.

Clause 12.

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, I am just going to clarify whether you wish to move these individually or en bloc. It is up to you.

Mr PICTON: I am happy to consider an en bloc arrangement, if you like, but I am happy to start individually and then consider that a test.

The CHAIR: I am in your hands. I am just putting it to you as an option really.

Mr PICTON: I think we will do them individually, if that is alright. I move:

Amendment No 5 [Picton–2]—

Page 4, line 10—Delete '2' and substitute '14'

This is a first amendment of two amendments to keep the rolls open for 14 days after issuing the writs. Obviously, there would be an element that this is a test clause. I do not think there is any need to read Erskine May. I am happy to consider that, if this were not to be successful, then I would not move those other amendments.

The CHAIR: Can I just interrupt, member for Kaurna. There was a very particular reason why we quoted Erskine May. My understanding is that there is a push from both the Clerk and the Speaker to get some of the precedents on record. It just so happens that it was in this committee tonight that that particular issue came up. That was the reason for my statement earlier.

Mr PICTON: It was particularly unusual compared with previous legislation I have dealt with. This amendment is the first of two amendments that seek to keep the rolls open for 14 days after the issue of the writs. To clarify the difference with my previous amendment that sought to allow enrolment up to and including election day, this amendment extends the time for closing of the rolls to 14 days. This would still be before pre-poll begins.

If enrolment up to and on the day were allowed, this would simply reduce the number of declaration votes needed by setting the close of rolls roughly halfway through the election period. However, this has become even more important, given the failure of the other amendment extending the time for South Australians to get on the electoral roll. Of course, this is a way that the government can undo what they have in this bill, which I believe is a cruel attempt to close the rolls earlier and will disenfranchise South Australians.

We have had the discussion from the Attorney that the fact we are closing rolls earlier does not really matter. She says not to worry about that because we are going to put the advertising campaign earlier. What a complete boondoggle of an argument that is. The fact is that people will still not be able to enrol. The presumption in that argument is that the only way people might enrol is if they see an ad on TV from the Electoral Commissioner. That is the only prompt they might have for enrolment, as opposed to talking to their friends, as opposed to seeing television advertisements from any of the parties, as opposed to corflutes going up on poles.

Mr Brown: Legal till today.

Mr PICTON: Exactly—still part of our legislation, even if this act were to pass. Even if the Attorney's other legislation, which we will not dwell on, were to pass, there would still be corflutes going up on private residences. There would be letters in people's mailboxes telling them about the coming election, and there might be postal vote applications being sent out from people. All these things might be happening that might be a prompt to people to say, 'Hey, I really should get on that electoral roll. I'm a new citizen,' or, 'I've just turned 18. This is the prompt for me to do that.' To say that the only reason that people are going to do that is because of ECSA's advertising campaign I think is completely naive.

Obviously, our position was consistent with the Electoral Commissioner's, that we would have hoped for enrolment right up until election day, but at least, if this amendment could pass, then we could have enrolment for 14 days after the issuing of the writs.

There are of course a number of jurisdictions that have enrolment up to on election day, and they can manage in those states issues regarding the closure of nominations. They are all able to be managed in those states as well. This amendment, if passed, gives more South Australians the opportunity to enrol to vote, enfranchises more people and makes sure that more South Australians will get to have their say at the next election.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Changes to the date of close of polls from six days after the issue of the writs to two days after the issue of the writs were made on the recommendation of the Electoral Commission and were consequential on changes made to postal voting time lines. This opposition amendment significantly extends the date for the close of rolls from the current six days after the issue of the writ to 14 days. This creates major delays in processing postal votes. There are major workability issues with the opposition amendment. The opposition amendment goes against the ECSA recommendation intended to enfranchise postal voters and will make the 14-day pre-poll voting period very difficult. I think I have otherwise canvassed this matter.

Mr BROWN: Again, I just want to thank the member for Kaurna for bringing forward this amendment. I will not reflect on a vote of the house, but I will say that members who at any stage previously have not taken the opportunity to enfranchise voters will now receive another opportunity to enfranchise voters by voting for this particular amendment.

There is little doubt that it is important for all of us to do everything we can to allow people's votes to be counted. I understand what the Attorney said, that is, 'This was not necessarily a recommendation from the Electoral Commissioner.' She is always keen to point to the fact that this was a recommendation, this was not a recommendation. Again, she does not talk about recommendation No. 1—which for some reason is not as important as the rest of the recommendations—but we will not go over that ground again.

I do not intend to go back again over the number of links between the Liberal Party and Trumpian voter suppression that has been canvassed widely in this parliament already. I will say that I think it is important that amendments such as this be supported so that we as a parliament can make the statement that we think it is important that as many people be allowed to vote as possible.

I have confidence in the Electoral Commissioner, in his ability to make sure that amendments like this are properly incorporated, that the work gets done and that as many people as possible are allowed to vote. We need to give him the rules he needs to make it happen for people to be able to vote. For us to accept recommendations that we should somehow restrict that I think is not the sort of thing this parliament should be doing, and I urge all members to support the amendment.

Ms COOK: As completely surprised as you are, I am supporting the amendment put up by the member for Kaurna, very sensibly. Again, there are many people who struggle to engage in the electoral cycle and it is not because of a lack of will to participate in the democratic process. Many people are highly engaged in the political process and very interested in what is going on in their community at a local, state and federal level. We all are privy to and have the joy of getting input via various means from people who are highly opinionated and wish us to take on board their views and their values.

Making the period of time after the writs shorter, in terms of people being able to get on the roll if they need to change their details or enrol, will reduce the capacity of people to engage in the democratic process. This will disproportionately affect younger people, older people, people with English as a second language, people who have mental health problems, people who are socially isolated and people who are homeless. They are the very people decisions in this place affect the most in terms of the negative or positive consequences of what legislation and policy can do to their lives.

Reducing the time available for them once the excited cycle begins, where there is an increased and a heightened level of publicity, I believe has a negative impact and we should have that process go for longer, not shorter. I do not know if I have told you, but I won my by-election by nine votes—that is five people. I reckon I have met those five people thousands of times in the past few years. Again, the story is the same. The number of people who contacted me on the day or within days of the election to say that they had not enrolled to vote or had their details changed was huge, and it was ridiculous given that there were thousands and thousands of corflutes around. I cannot imagine how many more people would have been disadvantaged if that time frame had have been shorter. So I support this amendment, which increases that amount of time.

The CHAIR: Thank you, member for Hurtle Vale. I bring members' attention to standing order 128, which deals with repetition. As wonderful as your story is, member for Hurtle Vale—

Ms Cook: Very powerful.

The CHAIR: —you are very proud of it—we have heard it already.

Ms COOK: Sir, I do not think we have ever had that ruling before. I get driven insane with the repetition. How many times have we been asked about the dog fence in question time? I would want to facepalm!

The CHAIR: I am not looking for an open discussion here, member for Hurtle Vale. I am merely bringing all members' attention to standing order No 128, which also deals with irrelevance—and I am by no means suggesting that your win in the by-election was irrelevant—but repetition stands.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 18

Noes 20

Majority 2

Amendment thus negatived.

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, you have amendment No. 6 standing in your name.

Mr PICTON: I think we are not proceeding with that, because I understand that amendment No. 6 is consequential on amendment No. 5, but I will move amendment No. 7. Accordingly, I move:

Amendment No 7 [Picton–2]—

Page 4, line 14—Delete 'prescribed by the regulations' and substitute:

considered appropriate by the Electoral Commissioner

This is the first amendment, apart from the other amendment that we discussed earlier, that allows the Electoral Commissioner to determine how to advertise elections and their various components, rather than letting it be done by regulation. This amendment more accurately reflects the change that was requested in the 2018 report. As I stated earlier, the details of the actual recommendation of the report of the Electoral Commissioner very specifically said that it should be within the decision making of the Electoral Commissioner himself or herself to decide upon what additional advertising should take place.

The Attorney has put forward an alternative proposition, which is that the advertising should happen by the nature of regulations which she and the cabinet would advise the Governor to put in place and which could happen without parliamentary oversight because we could well be having regulations put in place while parliament is prorogued from December onwards, particularly since the Attorney says that such regulations have not yet even been drafted, so it seems that it would be particularly late that that would be occurring.

Therefore, we are making this change in relation to what the government has put forward in clause 12. I will reference the exact provision in the current act, section 48(7), which provides:

(7) As soon as practicable after the issue of a writ for an election—

(a) its terms must be advertised by the Electoral Commissioner in a newspaper circulating throughout the State;

That is the current section, the current law that is in place. We believe that the Electoral Commissioner should have the ability to consider how that advertising and notification should take place. It should not be left to the government in a regulation without the potential for proper parliamentary oversight to consider that matter; hence, I have moved the amendment standing in my name.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is appropriate to set out the requirements for giving notice in regulations. The government will consult with the Electoral Commissioner in the preparation of any regulations made under this section.

Mr BROWN: Again, I thank the member for Kaurna for bringing forth this amendment, which I think does a far superior job than that which is proposed by the government. I think it is important for all of us to contemplate the fact that, while this particular government might not be of such a bent to play around with the formal provisions of writs for its own political ends, who is to say that a future government might not be of the same bent?

I think it is important that these things have parliamentary scrutiny. Given the fact that writs are such an important thing and something that can be done so late in the piece—in fact, they are necessarily done very late in the piece, in fact at the very end of a parliament—I think it is important that the form and manner in which they are done is fixed by the parliament and not something that is left to the will of the government of the day. So I urge everyone to support the amendment.

Ms COOK: You will be pleased to know that I am not going to talk about the by-election. I would support the member for Kaurna's amendment purely on the basis that, if this is being left to so late in the electoral cycle and we got to a point where it is deemed by regulation that a certain process can happen, that will not be scrutinised. My confidence lies with the Electoral Commissioner being able to determine this, and not merely being prescribed by regulations. I would support the amendment.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: If the Attorney wishes to speak, she needs to rise. If not, I will put the amendment.

Ayes 17

Noes 21

Majority 4

The CHAIR: That brings us to clause 12 as printed. Are there any questions?

Mr PICTON: Yes, why is the closing of the rolls required for other processes to continue in the electoral process?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Can the member repeat the question?

Mr PICTON: Can the Attorney outline why the closing of the rolls, which obviously this government is bringing forward to two days rather than six days in the current legislation, is required for other processes to happen in the electoral process, in particular compared to other states where that does not occur?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is the experience with postal voting. That is why the Electoral Commissioner has identified the necessity to bring that forward, to ensure that there is sufficient time to deal with the postal voting process, which although it is used less often nowadays is still an important means and a lawful mechanism to vote.

Unfortunately, the snail mail pace has affected postal voting, and the commissioner has identified in his report his concern about that unless he changes that. To accommodate any reduced time that there may be in the opportunity to encourage people to get ready and enrol, etc., for voting purposes, he has indicated his commitment to commence his drive for that on 22 January next year. I think that pretty much covers it. In particular, that relates to the preparation of materials and so on to go to the election. That is what is there. It is all in the report.

Mr PICTON: So why in other states that all have postal voting as well are there rolls that go right up until election day? What is unique about South Australian postal voting that requires the closure of the rolls here, whereas in other states they have postal voting continue without the same sort of problems you are anticipating?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The understanding of my adviser is that it is done as a savings provision. I am referring to page 15, A Call for Legislative Change: Enrolment on the Day, which relates to this. It says:

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

So that is how that operates in other jurisdictions.

Dr CLOSE: I am interested in the consultation that was undertaken for the decision to go from six to two, in particular knowing that it would be disproportionately disadvantaging young people and presumably some migrant communities. In other words, anyone who has become a citizen or has come of age since the last election is, by definition, likely to have to get enrolled in order to vote. Was there any targeted consultation with those groups to understand the likely impact of the move from six days to two days after the writs and therefore any ways in which that could be better managed in order to communicate so people know they have that amount of time and not that amount of time?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes. The six to two days is around the need to accommodate the viability of continued postal voting as an option to ensure there is able to be sufficient time to return those votes as valid votes. To compensate for reducing from six to two days, the Electoral Commissioner has said that he will open the campaign to encourage people to vote and remind them of their opportunity to enrol and vote starting on 22 January when usually it is 28 January, so you could say that the loss of days at one end will be complemented at the other end.

The member suggests that it is going to disenfranchise young people or people of cultural background. There is no evidence presented of that—none. There is no evidence whatsoever. What is important to note is that the commission undertakes a program of the opportunity of going from six to two and then starts to claim the area further. If the member had read the erratum that had been tabled yesterday from the Electoral Commissioner, the 25,000 that is referred to is for the period in a month, not the last six days.

This has been a theme through all the speeches that have been given in this debate. It is incorrect; the commissioner has made it clear that it is incorrect. We have referred to other documents that he published at the time, which clarifies that. To ensure that it is consistent with the report, he has tabled via me, obviously, as Attorney, the erratum to make that abundantly clear.

There are certain concerns raised by the Commissioner for Children and Young People in her letter about what could possibly occur in relation to children. On the other hand, she claims that in the work that she did from 2017 onwards—having a youth polling day and things of that nature, which were all helpful additions—she has continued to canvass with the Electoral Commissioner, a dedicated person, how there can be rewards offered for information about voting and enrolling to vote. There were different initiatives, some which might be useful and some which might not be. However, there has been no evidence presented at all as to whether it is—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am just telling you what she said. Are you listening?

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, no. She does not suggest that there is evidence of there being a change from the six to two days that it affects because she, too, relies on that erroneous data which was referred to and which the Electoral Commissioner has changed. There can be lots of predictions about whether it may or may not assist to use a different approach to encourage children to vote. She certainly provided some ideas in her contribution about engagement with children and how that could be better done to inspire them to become civically active, etc. That is all meritorious, but it does not tell us whether those things have directly improved the enrolment rate of children or not.

What we do know from that report is that there was a 20 per cent reduction in the last election after all these initiatives were apparently carried out in the overall enrolment during that period. Whether they are 80 or 18 has not been identified. Everyone can guess as much as they like. The reality is, though, that the Electoral Commissioner has said, 'I think we need to move from six to two days to accommodate the problem that we have in the close of the roll and the postal vote process, and to accommodate that means a reduction in days at one end.' He says that, to ensure we do not minimise or reduce the exposure of all the different programs, he has half a million dollars to spend on this to encourage people to sign up, enrol and vote if they are new to the state or have in fact turned 18. Somebody could do that analysis if they wished to, I suppose, but that is not what has been presented.

The children's commissioner has not presented that. She just says, 'I have interviewed a lot of children'—in fairness to her, I do not want to paraphrase it—'I have considered this democracy issue over a period of several years, and these are the sorts of statements children make to me about voting early, voting from 16, being respected in their views, etc.' She has set them all out in her letter. That is fine, but it does not actually tell us whether there has been an increase or a decrease, or what programs have actually worked from the 2014 election to the 2018 election, in which she has participated. Somebody can do that work for sure, but that does not undermine in any way the proposal of the Electoral Commissioner to go from six to two days for the reasons I have outlined.

Dr CLOSE: There has been no analysis done of who enrols in the lead-up to an election, but presumably that analysis could be undertaken. When people apply, they must put their date of birth, for example. They may include that they have become citizens recently. Did the minister not consider that that would be important? The perspective that I am bringing to this is that a group of people are being disadvantaged, but the Attorney in wanting to do this might choose to say, 'Because we need to do this,' by the justification made by the Attorney, 'we need to make sure that we are approaching the right groups'.

The Commissioner for Children is obviously doing an excellent job reaching out and talking to children, but there are other organisations, there are other groups of young people, who could be engaged with should it be identified that they are at risk in a shortening of the enrolment time. Therefore, strategies could be developed specifically targeted to those groups. Was there no request from the Attorney to the commissioner to do that evidence gathering on who is enrolling late?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, because the Electoral Commissioner is an independent commissioner. Frankly, if anybody, including the children's commissioner, wanted to put that request to the Electoral Commissioner they can do that. That is a matter for the Electoral Commissioner. He is presenting to us, via this bill, a proposal that he says is necessary to remedy the deficiencies we are now faced with with postal voting because of the slow post. He has identified that. If he has done any of this research he has not seen fit to publish it or provide it to us.

The member also keeps referring to a shortening of the period. I reiterate that it is the intention of the Electoral Commissioner—which he has published—that there will not be a shortening. The six to two days at one end is correspondingly opened up from 22 January so that there is no shortening of the overall period.

Mr Picton: The advertising campaign is not the enrolment period.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am just putting it to the member—

Mr Picton: It is completely false.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —the importance, which has been raised many times, of making people who are entitled to vote alert that an election is coming up, and that they should do so. I have indicated a lot—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am just outlining the position of the Electoral Commissioner. We oscillate in this debate: one minute they love the Electoral Commissioner, they trust what he is doing and want him to be setting the rules, and the next minute they are trying to say, 'Look, how can we trust what he is saying on this bit, because we don't like it.'

I am sorry; I am putting the position the Electoral Commissioner has presented. It is obviously an important phase in the lead up to the closing of the polls, and it is important to be able to provide that. I cannot make it any clearer.

Mr BROWN: The Attorney previously talked about the commissioner having done research and cogitated on the important period of time that would be available to people, and at the end of that process has come forward to change six days to two days. Is the Attorney able to provide to the house copies of any of that research that has been conducted by the commissioner or evidence of any conclusions the commissioner has made, other than the recommendations she talks about?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Firstly, the member has completely misunderstood what I have said. I am not aware of any research; I am indicating to the committee that I am not aware of any research he has done. He has identified this as a means of dealing with the ill of the delay in the postal vote and the inability for that to be effective, given the delay in postal deliveries we now face.

To deal with that he has recommended this occur, to compensate, in his view, for the importance of having a full period to alert people, having a major campaign in doing it, and adding to it initiatives from people like the children's commissioner or anyone who has some good ideas, ensuring we captivate the attention of those we think should be addressed, particularly if there is a very low take-up rate.

I do not think there is anything new about the enrolment of children being not 100 per cent. I am sure there are variations in all age groups. I think it is pretty clear that all those who are eligible to vote at 18 prior to the election are enrolled—they are clearly not. This is part of the reason why the Electoral Commissioner does this intensive campaign, apparently. I have seen some of it. It is targeted at people for whom English is a second language but also at young people. It is important.

I would imagine there is targeting of itinerants as well because that is a relatively new initiative that is able to be accommodated in our current electoral laws. There is no change; we still have fixed terms. Everyone knows they can start advertising now, I suppose, to say that we have an election on the third Saturday in March and the fourth anniversary, which will next fall in 2022.

It is not a situation where the Electoral Commissioner has undertaken research. I am not aware of any. He may have, but I am not aware of any. I again indicate that if members want to canvass that with him, they are perfectly entitled to do so.

Mr BROWN: It may well be for the Attorney to basically say the unenrolled will always be with us. I may ask her to confirm for the committee's benefit if it is her position that this particular shortening of the period is just arbitrarily picked and is not on the basis of any research or properly thought through argument.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The only other thing that I can helpfully add is that I am advised by Mr Gully, who is the deputy commissioner, that the Australian Labor Party reduced the voting period—I assume after the 2014 election, but I will have to check that—from 10 days to six days to assist postal application processing from when the fixed date election provisions came into operation. This is simply an extension of exactly the same reason. Funny about that: you have done it and now suddenly you are objecting to it.

Mr BOYER: Attorney, can you tell us how many people enrolled to vote between day two and day six at the last state election? Are you able to tell us what that number was?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I have seen it somewhere, but I will have to check between the houses. There is 25,000 in that month, from memory. I read it out the other day. This is what I read yesterday:

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—

Mr Picton: 12,000.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In round figures, 12,000—

and updates to the electoral roll, representing a decrease of 20.6 per cent from the same period in 2014.

From their press release, I provided information that there were 60,000 more voters in the 2018 election than there were in the 2014 election.

Mr BOYER: Just to clarify that, Attorney, are you saying it is roughly 12,000 in that period who enrolled to vote or close to 12,000 in that period who—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That is how I understand it, yes. So it is a whole month to move forward. I am expecting it to be repeated.

Mr PICTON: What seems clear is that even if the Attorney is now pointing out the erratum, that it is a lower number, very clearly in those six days it was 12,000 people at the last state election who enrolled to vote. Those six days will be reduced to two days. The argument that the Attorney has brought to the house that, 'There's no real change because we are starting the advertising campaign earlier,' is completely bogus. It is not the advertising campaign that gets people to enrol to vote; that is one element out of many.

People see the advertising going on TV, they see the corflutes going up, they see the letters coming in the mailbox, they see the stories on the television news, they see things popping up on their Facebook and they know the election is on. I am a keen follower of elections, very clearly, and of all the election noise and advertising you see, the advertising from the Electoral Commission telling people to enrol to vote would have to be a tiny slither of the election news out there in the public domain.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Says who?

Mr PICTON: Says me. That is what I am saying. I do not think you can doubt that with all the discussion on the airwaves, on social media, in paid advertising by political campaigns and also in all the unpaid discussion in the media—as well as corflutes, which are still legal and this bill does not seek to change that—people get to find out about the election from a variety of different sources.

Another element I think is very important when looking at those 12,000 people in the last state election, if my memory serves me correctly, is that the last state election happened shortly after we had the gay marriage plebiscite, which saw a huge number of people enrolled to vote. So that is potentially lower, and I think the Attorney mentioned, in fact, that there had been a reduction compared with the numbers in previous elections because many people no doubt brought forward their enrolment, and there had been a lot of discussion and commentary at the time that we saw huge numbers of young people at that time enrolling to vote so that they could have their say in that federal plebiscite.

So, potentially, we are looking at more than 12,000 people who will be impacted by this change that the Attorney is proposing—

Members interjecting:

Mr PICTON: It is of course unparliamentary to respond to an interjection, but the—

The CHAIR: It is, and also I am going to call members to order for chatting across the chamber because we are having a debate in the committee.

Mr PICTON: If the Attorney-General has to be ejected, I am sure that somebody else could take over.

The CHAIR: No, it has not reached that stage, member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: That unparliamentary interjection from the member for Bragg reminded me of a number of questions that I hope the Attorney could take. If she does not have the details here, she can take them on notice between the houses.

Firstly, of the almost 12,000 people at the last state election, what was the percentage of those who were 18 to 24 year olds? Presumably, that is something that the commission would know because they know the age of everybody who enrols. What were the relevant figures for the 2014 election for the last six days of enrolment, and four days if possible, and the breakdown by age from the 2014 election as well, and right now what is the percentage of people who are aged 18 to 24 who are enrolled to vote?

From the literature I have seen, there have been various studies put out federally that we have a much lower percentage of people 18 to 24 who are enrolled to vote, not just in South Australia but across Australia, and it is likely to be in the tens of thousands, if not more than 100,000 people, who are young voters probably under 30, and a smaller number in the 18 to 24 group. I think it would be useful for the parliament to know exactly how many people in that younger age bracket are right now not on the electoral roll in South Australia. I hope that the Attorney, if she does not know the answers to those questions, can take them on notice and provide them between houses.

The CHAIR: So, Attorney, are you thinking you can take that on notice?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will make the inquiries.

The CHAIR: The question before the Chair is that clause 12 stands as printed.

Ayes 21

Noes 16

Majority 5

Clause 13.

Mr PICTON: I move:

Amendment No 8 [Picton–2]—

Page 4, line 19—Delete 'prescribed by the regulations' and substitute:

considered appropriate by the Electoral Commissioner

This amends clause 13, which amends section 49(1). This is a section that is probably not considered very much in terms of a deferral of election, but you never know, particularly in the upcoming set of scenarios we might have.

Under the provisions currently, a deferral of election needs to be advertised in a newspaper circulating generally throughout the state. The Attorney is proposing that should be on a website and in a means determined by the executive through a regulation. We are supporting, again, what the Electoral Commissioner actually put forward in his report, which is that it should be a website but also a means determined by the Electoral Commissioner himself.

It is an amendment consistent with the others that we have moved so far. Once again, particularly where we do not have the Attorney providing us with her draft regulations or any detail of what she thinks this regulation might say—and the Attorney may well introduce these regulations after the start of December, when parliament will not be sitting and will not have the opportunity to review and to potentially hold the government to account in terms of deciding whether or not the regulation should stand—we believe that the Electoral Commissioner would be a better arbiter of where such publications should occur. That is consistent with what is in his report.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I indicate that this is, I think, the third time that we are back to the Electoral Commissioner setting the agenda according to this proposed amendment. Again, I point out that the Electoral Commissioner has worked in advising on the bill and the development of the bill and, consistent with usual practice, it is appropriate to set out the requirements for giving notice in regulations. It is not a government rule, but indeed a process which has the supervision of the parliament. The government will consult with the Electoral Commissioner, as I have indicated, in preparation of any regulations made under this section.

Mr BROWN: I just want to express my support for the amendment moved by the member for Kaurna and again express disappointment in the government's view, which I know has been expressed a number of times by the Attorney, for which she has not yet provided any evidence—this idea, this concept of the rogue Electoral Commissioner, that the Electoral Commissioner may decide to do something that is out of step with what the parliament wants and that the best remedy for that is to somehow give the executive control over the form and function of things.

I do not intend to traverse again the fact that regulations could be made very late in the piece and would not have the scrutiny of this parliament, and would provide too much power and authority to the executive. That pretty much goes without saying by the fact that they are regulations. I would endorse this particular amendment and suggest that members support it.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIR: We now come to clause 13 as printed.

Mr PICTON: Obviously, it has been a matter of discussion, and I believe the Attorney has discussed it a number of times in the parliament already, that there may be a deferral of the upcoming state election. There may be the need for significant education and communication to the public in terms of the deferral of that election because of the looming federal action at the same time. Given that this clause is in relation to how the public should be notified of such a change, has the government given any thought to what would need to be put in place, and in particular whether any additional budget would be provided to the Electoral Commissioner in the event that the date had to be changed for the 2022 state election?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, and as the member would recall, this was a matter considered and questions asked by him to me. The Electoral Commissioner provided information at estimates confirming that, yes, planning is in process by him and a budget allowance is being made for the contingency of there being an announcement of a federal election during the month of March, which could delay our election up to three weeks. I think, if the member might recall, he answered the member for Kaurna's questions about making inquiries as to bookings for alternate dates for schools and halls and the like for polling booths in the event that that were to occur.

Some preparatory work has been underway. As I understand it, a plan is being put together in the event that that needs to become operational. Obviously, if the Prime Minister were to announce his election, which of course at the federal level are not fixed term elections, anytime in the meantime prior to March, then that will not be necessary to change.

I would also remind members, as I think I have reported to the parliament before, that the election can only be put into April and it cannot be brought forward into February. So it cannot be bought forward; it has to be postponed. There has been certainly commentary around what happens then. Just to remind members, it is not just a situation if a Prime Minister announced an election on our proposed election day; it would be any date within March that could affect our needing to take it forward. Yes, all of those matters were traversed, in fact by the member for Kaurna, at estimates.

Mr PICTON: I thank the Attorney for going through some of what we had heard previously in relation to polling booths and the like. I guess my question was more specifically in regard to the communication that would need to happen with the public in that event. Has there been planning in terms of what communication and advertising campaign would need to happen to alert the public? Has that been provided an additional budget in that event? Have there been estimates around that budget? From my recollection, the discussion in estimates did not cover that communication element, which is obviously relevant to what we are discussing now.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: How much of the anticipated extra costs there would be—for example, cancelling venues, reappointing staff, all of these sorts of things and what the advertising budget of that—I have not got that information here, but I will make that inquiry.

Dr CLOSE: The reason for the deferral of the election, should it happen next year, will of course be because the federal election comes in the way. I wonder if the Attorney can describe any discussions that she has had with the Electoral Commissioner about making sure in informing the public about the deferral of the date that it is clear that this is the state election that is being deferred and that the federal election is taking place first.

There has been some consideration about the manner in which that is communicated in order to help distinguish between the two elections, which might otherwise become very confusing, given that there is likely to be advertising coming from both levels of politics. There are likely to be media stories coming from both levels of politics. Has there been any consideration about the way in which it will become clear that on this date it will be the federal and on this date it will be the state election?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have not been briefed in relation to that specifically. There has certainly been some discussion around it included with Mr Reggie Martin when we discussed the funding bill with Mr Gully. We were in a meeting in relation to that and there were questions raised about what will be relevant advertising during campaigns, for example, which include, say, the Leader of the Opposition federally with the Leader of the Opposition in South Australia or the Prime Minister and the Premier in the same photographs and advertising material.

Is that relevant to caps in elections, for the state election or the federal election, these types of issues? These are the complications that come potentially when there is some overlap in the time that is being devoted to the first election and then the second and whether, if there is some proximity of those, as to the allocation of that for funding purposes and disclosure purposes. So that is one issue that has been raised.

As to the question of what do you need to explain to the public and what program is specifically there to assist them to understand that, firstly, there would be a federal election and, secondly, consequentially there is an adjourned date for the state election. I have not had the particulars of that discussion but these are all matters which I think, pretty clearly—just discussing it with Mr Martin, for example, who is obviously very involved in the development of the campaigns for the Australian Labor Party—senior personnel in political movements or parties are considering as we speak.

As to the Electoral Commissioner, I have not sought detail from him as to the particulars of how he is going to manage that issue of, effectively, contemporaneous elections.

Clause passed.

Clauses 14 to 21 passed.

Clause 22.

Mr PICTON: My understanding is that some of the changes here at least are in relation to the changes that have been proposed in relation to expansion of pre-poll voting. Is it the Attorney's intention, through at least the first two elements of clause 22, that essentially this is going to change the manner in which booths are thought of, in that we are now going to have 12 different election days rather than just the one and each one of those pre-poll days would be considered a polling day, and the polling booth would include the pre-poll booth operating on each of those 12 different days?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think the member can describe it however he wishes. The fact is, the proposal is that the pre-polling will be available for 12 days prior to the polling day. I think it is fair to say that, firstly, there has been a surge in popularity in recent years in South Australia and across Australia to vote during this pre-poll period. In fact, at the last election I recall we had significantly long lines, and again the Electoral Commissioner indicated during his estimates that he was proposing that there be an extension of the number of pre-poll booths in addition to this proposal.

Key to this expansion is the convenience voting and the removal of the eligibility for pre-poll voting. Four Australian jurisdictions—NT, Queensland, Victoria and WA—have removed pre-poll eligibility requirements in the past decade, while the ACT government is currently considering removing its requirements. ECSA's 2018 elector survey showed broad support for removing pre-poll eligibility requirements in South Australia, with 58 per cent of pre-poll voters stating that people should not have to provide a valid reason to vote early.

Another important reason to remove eligibility requirements is ECSA's inability to enforce compliance. As progressively more people vote early, the eligibility test has become problematic. The reality is that polling officials cannot test voters' claims to be travelling or caring for an ill family member and must simply accept them at face value. Given the indisputable rise in demand for pre-poll voting, mirroring national and international trends, the public's support for removing eligibility requirements and the impracticality of enforcing compliance, ECSA recommends legislative change to remove the eligibility criteria for pre-poll voting in South Australia.

Even if members were not convinced by the indications of popularity that are flowing in the other jurisdictions and in our own state, as I have indicated—and New Zealand is actually another one that has shown a massive appetite for that—now we are in COVID circumstances, so this is an important amendment to ensure that the election can proceed in a COVID-safe manner.

While we are on estimates, the Electoral Commissioner again set out the significance of having to have a COVID plan ready for this forthcoming election. The COVID safety plan includes reducing large numbers of people attending at polling booths on polling day. These are all factors which enhance the desirability of us removing the eligibility criteria, and it is of course all consistent with recommendation 11 of the Electoral Commissioner.

Mr PICTON: I am not quite sure what the COVID difference is between a large number of people at an election day polling booth and a large number of people at a pre-poll polling booth, but we will leave that be for the minute. Clause 22(3) changes the kilometre limit to be able to do a declaration vote, from eight kilometres to 20 kilometres away from the nearest polling booth. Why has that change been made to expand how far somebody would have to be before they undertook that type of vote?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that it is to meet the consistency with provisions in section 74—Issue of declaration voting papers by post or other means, specifically section 74(3)(c), which sets out that the elector's place of residence not be within 20 kilometres, so it is for consistency purposes of the act I am referring to of course.

Mr PICTON: There is a change in 22(4), which amends section 71(2)(c) to delete that paragraph. That paragraph states that a resident of a declared institution is entitled to make a declaration vote. Why is there an amendment to stop a resident of a declared institution from being able to make a declaration vote?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, I referred to this earlier. This is in relation to replacing mobile polling booths with pre-poll.

Mr BROWN: Can the Attorney clarify that? Is the Attorney informing the house that she envisages that the ability of those residents of declared institutions will be curtailed and that they no longer will be able to cast declaration votes and will now be required to attend a polling booth?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, not at all. You misunderstand that completely. They will still have that facility, but it will be treated as a pre-poll vote.

Mr BROWN: Attorney, I am happy to explain a bit more fulsomely. What about those who are unable to attend a booth located at a declared institution?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The declared institution becomes the site at which the pre-poll is available. It is no different from the person who is in the nursing home. They will still have that accessibility: it is called a pre-poll.

Mr Cowdrey interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, thank you, member for Colton. It is called a pre-poll.

Mr Brown interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have said this many times during this debate. For all the reasons I have just listed—the appetite of the public, the demand for the opportunity to be able to have a vote without having to sign a declaration, the incapacity to scrutinise that and enforce it, even to try to prove that you were not actually caring for a sick person at home, or that you were not pregnant or you were not having to work—we are moving away from the declaration vote and we are not making it impossible for people to access, but that does not mean we will not provide the capacity for someone to receive a pre-poll vote process at the nursing home.

The Electoral Commissioner has already made that very clear at estimates. He is not proposing to change or reduce the accessibility of people to vote via pre-polling booths. He went on to say that he is going to expand pre-poll booths. He said that for people in nursing homes, instead of having a mobile unit with a declaration procedure, they will have a pre-poll procedure, but they will still have a procedure. And, if we ever get telephone-assisted voting through, they will be able to do it on a telephone.

Mr BOYER: Attorney, I think you touched on this in an answer to a question from the member for Kaurna, but in the proposed change from eight kilometres to 20 kilometres what modelling was done in terms of why 20 kilometres was chosen as the substitute?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am indicating that it is to be consistent with other provisions in the act, including section 74. We are moving away from a declaration system to a pre-poll system, where you do not have to have a declaration where you have to sign that you are pregnant or looking after somebody, and that you have to be able to have this access to be able to do that, and we are setting up the rules around it to be consistent through the act. That is all I am advised is the reason for it.

Mr BOYER: Attorney, what questions have you yourself asked as to why that 20 figure was chosen? I understand you are saying consistency, and I am sure it is one reason, but surely that is not reason enough to make a change like this. What modelling was done in terms of why people from that distance would be more eligible than others? We are talking about potential disenfranchisement of people. What questions did you ask about how many people potentially would be affected by the change? Surely with something as important as voting, consistency alone is not enough.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, it is, and it is an important thing because, if we are moving the manner of voting for an elector who is entitled to vote in an election, and we are moving away from a declaration procedure so that we have more people casting ordinary votes that can be counted on the day, we need to have consistency between those models. So I entirely agree with the Electoral Commissioner, and when he says to me, 'This is a consistency aspect,' I absolutely agree with him.

Clause passed.

Clause 23.

Mr PICTON: This change appears to me to be essentially about changing, when you go to vote, what questions you are asked. I think all of us would be familiar: you are asked what your name is, what your address is, have you previously voted in this election. The proposal is to no longer ask the question about the address of the person's principal place of residence. I wonder if the Attorney can outline why the decision has been made to put this amendment to no longer ask that question regarding the person's principal place of residence.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: This was raised by ECSA, as it was not appropriate to ask silent electors their place of residence. The identity of a person can be established by the existing provisions, which provide that the authorised officer can put further questions as necessary to establish whether the person is entitled to vote. So that is the reason.

Mr PICTON: This is not something I have had to encounter, with my name, but there may potentially be names where there might be multiple people of the same name in the one electorate. So if we are not asking for a person's address, how are you determining which person they are on the electoral roll?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, that is exactly why there is a capacity for the authorised officer to put further questions as are necessary. So if it turned out there were 10 Chris Pictons in the seat of Kaurna—heaven forbid; it is a frightening thought, but anyway, let us assume that occurred—and you turn up to say, 'I'm here to vote, and my name is Chris Picton,' and they say, 'Well, which one are you? Are you at Maslin Beach or are you at Noarlunga?' They can ask those things, but we have already traversed in this debate the significance and importance of the silent voter.

It has been raised with the Electoral Commissioner. His view is that the best way is to not as a matter of course say, 'Are you the Chris Picton of such and such address at Noarlunga?' with everyone able to hear. Is it better that he ask what your name is and then identify if there are six or 10 Chris Pictons in the area and, if it is necessary, then traverse further detail and ask more questions? It seems a fairly simple way of resolving an issue that has been raised with the Electoral Commissioner, and I agree with it.

Mr BROWN: On that point, Attorney, you have indicated that one of the reasons behind this change is to deal with silent electors. Is it no longer the commissioner's position to encourage silent electors to become general postal voters so they do not need to turn up to booths and give their address?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not that I am aware of, no.

Mr BOYER: In relation to the member for Kaurna's question, Attorney, do you have any understanding of what the other questions that might need to be asked might be in lieu of asking for an address? If, for instance, there are a number of Chris Pictons in a seat, and the person needs to establish that it is this one in particular—

An honourable member: This is going to be a theme.

Mr BOYER: It is. Do you have any understanding or did you ask any questions about what those other questions might be that need to be asked to establish the identity of the person?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It may be, for example, to address the suburb of where the person may live to differentiate. It may be that the person is asked whether they have any concerns about disclosing their address verbally—if it could be audible—and they may be invited to write it down, for example; or the person who is doing the sign-off, which is electronic these days, assuming they have a pencil available, could write it down and show it to the person. They could try to do it that way.

What we are looking at here is ensuring that it is not necessary, most of the time, and where it is necessary, that there is another means by which that can be obtained without causing embarrassment or a threat to the safety of the person who is being asked.

Clause passed.

Clauses 24 and 25 passed.

Clause 26.

Mr PICTON: Firstly, I think if there is anybody who is going to have multiple people in the electorate in their name, it is probably the member for Playford. There are probably many out there. I move:

Amendment No 11 [Picton–2]—

Page 8, after line 34 [clause 26, after subclause (2)]—Insert:

(2a) Section 77(2)(b)—delete '12' and substitute '7'

This seeks to implement a position that the South Australian Labor Party has had for some time, which is consistent with the position that we have had in relation to encouraging people to vote on election day. This would give South Australians seven days to vote at a polling booth, six days at a pre-poll booth and election as well, in addition of course to the other types of voting in relation to postal votes, declaration votes, mobile booths and the like.

This is also part of the effort to make sure that constituents have the best access to, and equality of access to, information before they vote, making sure that everybody has the same information. Always, there is particularly new information that comes out before polling day, and as many people who can get that same information can be the best possible informed voters.

This will allow someone to vote on any day of the week. Voters will still have access to postal votes and some voters will have access to telephone voting as well. As the act stands, any South Australian who votes at a pre-poll centre must have a valid reason to vote early and cast a declaration vote. With those barriers being diminished and based on the principle that people should be encouraged to vote on election day, this amendment therefore balances that. The period to vote is slightly shorter, but it will have to be a declaration vote and they will not have to meet the requirements that the bill removes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: This amendment will reduce the amount of time available for pre-polling from 12 days to seven days. ECSA's election report noted the significant increases I have detailed to this committee in demand for pre-polling voting in recent years, and this demand is expected to continue. To reduce the number of days that are available for pre-poll voting will put significant pressure on pre-polling booths and most likely create queues and delays for people who want to vote early. Pre-polling is an important part of ensuring that election occurs in a COVID-safe manner.

It just seems rather peculiar to me that the member would now be saying something like, 'It's bad enough that people can vote before at all, because they all should be voting on polling day, but we are going to punish them by only leaving them with five days to be able to do it.' This is the 21^st century, this is the COVID situation we are in, and it is almost unbelievable to think that we have this obsession with holding onto the idea that we are going to make everybody vote on polling day. Where is the democracy in that?

It is this idea that the Australian Labor Party thinks that people have to go along and have to all listen for exactly the same period to what is happening out there. Some people make their decision very early. Some people do not make it until the minute they walk into the polling booth. Some people never vote at all, or turn up even, which of course is against the law, but that is the reality. This is the situation that exists. The Labor Party has this archaic idea that we all have to tune into what is happening and we all have to have the same amount of information at the time of voting; heaven forbid that we have any decision-making independence.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The age of paternalism is over. People are entitled to have a vote. We on this side of the house respect that. We think they should have a choice to vote for whom they wish and when they wish. In a COVID environment, it is even more critical that we give them an opportunity to do that at a safe distance from others.

I do not just say that; the Electoral Commissioner supports this position being extended to 12 and, with the amendments to the declaration vote, the relaxation of that will enable us to increase the number of votes that can be ultimately counted on the night. Is that not that a great thing? We will actually have some chance of knowing who has won their seat.

Even if there are a few outstanding, there will still be some indication and capacity to identify who is going to be able to form government. Why is that important? It is not very helpful if we have to wait months to sort that out before we can have the calling together of the parliament to continue the business of the state. So for all these reasons, I applaud the commission's approach on this.

I am also very pleased to have heard the contribution by Antony Green, a long-term commentator in this area, when he visited South Australia. He even provided an information forum at the parliament. We have not always agreed on things. In fact, one night I was sitting on an election panel and he announced that the seat of Bragg had fallen. That was clearly a mistake and thankfully it was, as I was sweating away on television.

Obviously, it was wrong. Obviously, they had got the figures wrong or something. I was not panicking at that point, but I was trying to be very confident on television having to defend that position. Nevertheless, Mr Green has obviously watched elections and been a significant commentator on Australian elections. He has given great service in this area and, importantly, he has come along to endorse this groundbreaking approach from the South Australian parliament. I was very pleased to have that endorsement.

The CHAIR: Are we speaking to the amendment, deputy leader?

Dr CLOSE: Yes, it is a question for the Attorney, though. In criticising the amendment, the Attorney referenced the importance of safety in COVID times. We all hope this is an event that will pass eventually and one ought to probably not make ongoing laws on the basis of it. Has the Attorney contemplated that a longer period might be appropriate by regulation under a particular health circumstance but not necessary in an ongoing sense, given that—we clearly have a disagreement—the principle of democracy is that everyone makes a decision, as near as possible, at the same time with, as much as possible, the same information?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I understand where the member is coming from. I think the idea that the Electoral Commissioner—I think it is the only one in Australia—is bound by this obligation to encourage electors to vote on election day is actually a peculiar quirk of the South Australian legislation. It is a rather bizarre thing, but anyway the former Labor government put it into the act and it impedes the opportunity for people to have a choice.

Breaking down the access to vote, not having to sign declarations—the old declaration vote—will assist in that, but this is the real world. Even pre COVID, we had election after election where there was a desire for people to be able to vote at different times, other than attending at a polling booth on election day. Some do it by postal votes. Hopefully, telephone-assisted voting will also be extended to people other than just those people who might be visually impaired. It is obviously designed to assist those overseas, for all the reasons I have pointed out.

This is the real world. People do expect the capacity. We are also getting inquiries about electronic voting. I think that is a bit premature yet. The Electoral Commissioner tells me that he is ever alert to these options around the world, but we have seen some shockers in other jurisdictions that have been hopeless. Obviously, we have to get it right if we are going to go into large-scale electronic voting.

In any event, at the moment I think the position is pretty clear: this is something the public has an appetite for. I think there is a level of unease at present in relation to being in proximity to others. In fact, we are being advised by health advisers that, even as we come through the safe vaccination periods that have been identified for the relaxation of travel and restrictions and the like, there is still a strong encouragement we are hearing from health professionals that we keep some distance, wear masks at the moment, still wash our hands, etc., and those sorts of things.

It would be unrealistic to expect that everyone is going to feel comfortable to come out on election day and mix with other crowds—they may even have to line up in queues—especially if they are frail aged or in a circumstance where they may have some comorbidity with health problems. I would think this is a very important initiative and is just enhanced by the fact that we are in a COVID situation.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 27 and 28 passed.

Clause 29.

Mr PICTON: I move:

Amendment No 12 [Picton–2]—

Page 10, after line 4 [clause 29, after subclause (5)]—Insert:

(5a) Section 84A—after subsection (2) insert:

(2a) Regulations relating to an assisted voting method that involves telephone voting must at least provide for the method to include the following requirements:

(a) a witness who listens to the entire telephone communication between a prescribed elector voting using the method and the relevant officer taking the vote and ensures that—

(i) the prescribed elector's vote is accurately marked by the officer in the presence of the witness; and

(ii) the officer then reads the marked vote aloud to the prescribed elector; and

(iii) the prescribed elector confirms that their vote has been accurately marked or, if the prescribed elector seeks to amend their vote, the officer accurately marks the amendments and reads the amended marked vote aloud to the prescribed elector;

(b) a witness who performs the functions referred to in paragraph (a) in relation to an assisted vote—

(i) records a unique identifier number (being a number provided to the prescribed elector in relation to their assisted vote) on the declaration envelope into which the vote is to be placed; and

(ii) signs the declaration envelope; and

(iii) folds the ballot paper and seals it inside the declaration envelope.

(2b) Regulations made under section 84A(2)(f) cannot disapply or modify the operation of subsection (2a) in relation to an assisted voting method that involves telephone voting.

One of the features of the Attorney's legislation is in regard to telephone voting. This amendment sets out requirements that would be in place for an assisted voting method, i.e. telephone voting. Essentially, we have set out what the Attorney-General said in her contribution the requirements would be for telephone voting. The Attorney outlined in her words what she regards would need to be put in regulations. We have turned her words, and we have spoken to parliamentary counsel and proposed this amendment that would make sure there is a statutory basis for it, rather than relying on regulation.

As a number of members have raised in their second reading contribution, there are concerns about integrity with telephone voting. Therefore, we are seeking to put in the statute the requirements, as the Attorney outlined. I would anticipate that the regulations around this would be similar to what is in the amendment. We think it is important, though, to ensure that they are spelled out in the legislation, given the importance of making sure that protections are there in this very important area where we are significantly expanding the use of assisted voting.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The advice I have is that the provisions being put in the act are unnecessarily prescriptive. Certainly, this outlines what I have been advised, and I have made statements about my understanding of how this works. The member would also understand that the telephone voting that we have could well change, and there may be more packages or modules that make this slightly different, and what would happen then if there were an automatic transfer without a prescription number and how that process would work.

At the last election, my understanding is that the package we bought from Western Australia to assist people to vote was one where they had to attend at the Royal Society of the Blind or one of those agencies. You physically had to go in and attend and, with the assistance of somebody there, undertake the vote. That was slightly different.

We apparently purchased this program from Western Australia, and this will supersede that, so we will now have this new system. This is what technology is like: it enables us to upgrade. In this instance, the Electoral Commissioner is suggesting that it be made available for people other than those who are sight impaired but in fact made available to overcome the problem of the overseas voters who may well still be stuck overseas by the time we get to an election.

The postal vote there has been wildly inadequate, as we knew from the last election; that is, there is not sufficient time to get the mail back for them to be able to cast a valid vote. Talk about excluding people who have an entitlement to vote. He is recommending that this new technology be available for them to be able to do that as well via a telephone-assisted vote. This has turned up at a time when, hopefully, it will be useful when we are dealing with COVID restrictions as well. However, I am advised that if there are changes to technology and we have to come back to have that changed, that would be difficult to do, obviously, after December.

I am further advised that the Electoral Commissioner would, of course, be consulted in the preparation of any regulations, but I can tell the parliament that my reading of this is consistent with what I am advised is the process in terms of how this would operate. Ordinarily this type of material would be in a regulation; it would be unusual to put it in an act and, in this case, unnecessarily prescriptive.

Dr CLOSE: I will ask the mover of the amendment to elaborate on some of the concerns he is seeking to address and risks that he sees in not having a more careful prescription of the regulations that relate to this form of voting assistance.

Mr PICTON: Thank you for the question without notice from the deputy leader. It gives me an opportunity to outline what we are seeking which, I say again, is what the Attorney-General outlined would be the protections in place for the assisted voting method.

A witness who listens to the entire telephone communication between a prescribed elector voting using the method and the relevant officer taking the vote ensures that the vote is accurately marked. The officer then reads the marked vote aloud to the prescribed elector. The prescribed elector confirms the vote has been accurately marked or, if the prescribed elector seeks to amend the vote, the officer accurately marks the amendments and reads the amended vote aloud to the prescribed elector.

This is a very different approach to voting from what we have known. There are good reasons why we need to have it in place, in particular, for people with disabilities, and the next amendment seeks to better define exactly who would be eligible for such a vote. However, it is important that we set forth some of those requirements about how that process should take place—just as the Attorney outlined would be in the regulations—to make sure that it is done appropriately, safely and with the right safeguards in place.

A witness who performs the functions in relation to an assisted vote records a unique identifying number, being a number provided to the prescribed elector in relation to the assisted vote, on the declaration envelope in which the vote is to be placed, signs the declaration envelope, folds the ballot paper and seals it in the declaration envelope. So there is protection there about how the vote is to be dealt with to make sure that confidentiality is maintained, the unique identifying number not being able to be recognised as a name or address would be.

Of course, there can be regulations that would be put in place to address what I think the Attorney's concerns are, but I think with these particular requirements, as technology changes you would still see the need for these requirements and features in the future.

Dr Close: You've convinced me.

Mr PICTON: I have convinced the member for Port Adelaide, thank goodness.

Ayes 16

Noes 21

Majority 5

Mr PICTON: I move:

Amendment No 13 [Picton–2]—

Page 10, lines 6 and 7 [clause 29(6), definition of prescribed elector]—Delete the definition of prescribed elector and substitute 'prescribedelector means—'

(a) a sight-impaired elector; or

(b) an elector with a disability within the meaning of the Disability Inclusion Act 2018 (other than sight-impairment); or

(d) any other elector, or class of elector, specified for the purposes of this definition in a direction under section 25 of the Emergency Management Act 2004.

Amendment No 14 [Picton–2]—

Page 10, after line 7—Insert:

(7) Section 84—after subsection (4) insert:

(5) For the purposes of paragraph (b) of the definition of prescribed elector in subsection (4), the regulations may declare that a reference to a disability in that paragraph—

(a) will be taken to include a disability of a kind prescribed by the regulations; and

(b) will be taken not to include a disability of a kind prescribed by the regulations.

Amendment No. 13—and No. 14 is subsequent—spells out which electors will be eligible for a telephone vote. Sight-impaired electors are of course already included, but this amendment allows for an elector with a disability. The definition has been based upon the Disability Inclusion Act 2018 or any elector or a class of elector as set out in the directions by the State Coordinator under section  25 of the Emergency Management Act. Obviously, we are in a COVID situation, the emergency has been going for some time, but there is also the potential that people might be in bushfire particular areas, etc., hence the need for the State Coordinator who might be able to in the future set out a particular class of people who would be eligible for the telephone voting.

It is important, I think, to set out clearly in the legislation who can cast their vote by telephone. Regulations can be made after parliament has risen for this electoral act. We have talked about this a number of times. We have not seen a draft of the regulations from the Attorney, regulations probably likely to be put into place after parliament is prorogued. There would not be an opportunity for parliament to disallow them before the election.

There would be nothing stopping the government changing regulations to include any electors without the possibility of a disallowance, if this amendment is not agreed to. We accept that there may be emergency situations that might become an issue and hence, for that reason, the State Coordinator will have the power to make directions for any class of voter under the Emergency Management Act.

We believe this amendment strikes the right balance in defining the people who are being sought to be aimed at for this class of voting, being able to deal with emergency management issues in the future and also making sure of proper parliamentary oversight in terms of the drafting of this section.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In relation to amendment 13, which attempts to restrict who can be in the prescribed elector category, and amendment 14, which I suppose in some ways restricts the definition of disability, with the flexibility around the definition of disabilities being a good thing, the government's view is that all categories of electors who can access telephone-assisted voting should be prescribed by regulation.

If I just go back to the first one, the proposal in the amendment is to allow for categories of prescribed electors to be prescribed by regulation; specifically, it is to be a sight-impaired elector, or an elector of a class prescribed by the regulations and, clearly, one of the reasons for telephone-assisted voting is to provide options for overseas electors who struggle to return their ballots in time to be counted.

The government considers that the flexibility to add or remove categories of electors by regulation is a key part of the workability of the telephone-assisted voting, especially in relation to ensuring a COVID election. So it may well be that the prescribed elector may, in the regulations, include an elector with a disability under the meaning of the Disability Inclusion Act. That may be a sensible thing to include, other than sight impairment obviously because that is already provided for. It may be that the elector class would include people who may be the subject of a direction under the Emergency Management Act, whether that is a bushfire or a COVID circumstance.

These may all be sensible things to be accommodated, but so are already a known class of people who are currently prejudiced by being overseas and having to rely on a postal system. That is a difficulty that we have already been through an election and experienced, and which the Electoral Commissioner has highlighted as an area of need. So why on earth would we be then trying to be prescriptive, as the proposer of this amendment is, when we already know that there is a significant class that is already disadvantaged? So much for democracy.

These are the reasons why we think it is important. It may turn out that telephone voting is highly sought after by people who are simply frail aged and have some difficulty in being able to access a polling booth safely, in their eyes, and do not want to take that risk. In any event, the examples that have been given by the mover of the amendment I think are worthy of inclusion in any regulation which sets out the prescribed classes.

Certainly, we would want to see the overseas electors included, who have already been identified and highlighted by ECSA as requiring attention. This is a complementary way of ensuring that their vote will be able to be received and not excluded by virtue of returning after the cut-off time for the election.

I do not know what is going to hold in relation to overseas travel and when it will resume and how people can get back or whether they can afford to get back—those sorts of things—we just do not know that. The Electoral Commissioner has highlighted that to us. I think this is in direct contradiction of what he is trying to do, and I support the Electoral Commissioner's position.

Mr PICTON: The Attorney, in highlighting the provisions in relation to overseas voters—certainly, we would welcome considering an amendment to this amendment, but what the opposition has been trying to do in putting forth this amendment is to make sure that there is the ability for parliament to have in the statute the criteria around who would be eligible for this assisted telephone voting.

I am pretty sure you could look back at any number of speeches by the member for Bragg of four years ago around whether we should be prioritising regulation or statute, and she would have erred on the side of putting things in the statute. Of course, the member for Bragg of today is saying, 'It's all fine. Just leave it all up to the regulation.' Funnily enough, we do not have that view. We believe that this should be articulated and codified in the legislation. We, therefore, are happy to consider any amendment that the Attorney-General may propose to expand the criteria as to what has been put here but, above all, our position is that we want to see this codified.

I am intrigued that the Attorney in her contribution just then suggested that it may include older people who do not want to go to the polling booth. That is a very substantial increase in the number of people who would be able to use telephone-assisted voting in South Australia. I think that would be the largest expansion of any such assisted voting in Australia.

This highlights the need to have the parliament consider this rather than it be left to the cabinet to advise the Governor to put some regulations in just before the election where there would not be the ability for parliament to provide any oversight, and there would not be the ability to disallow any regulations that completely would seek to overstep the mark, such as the Attorney-General was just suggesting in her contribution.

Amendments negatived.

The CHAIR: We need to deal with clause 29 as printed.

Mr PICTON: Clearly, now this clause is going to give the government the power to consider any class of voter that the regulation could be put in place to cover, in terms of this telephone-assisted voting.

Can the Attorney outline for the house whether there have been any draft regulations put forth or drafted already in terms of who would be the classes. Can she elaborate on her suggestion of five minutes ago that a class of people may well include older people who do not wish to go to the polling booth on election day. Is that the potential class of people the government would consider a regulation to include in this class of voting?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I was certainly using that as an example of someone who may be fearful in a COVID environment—if they have comorbidity issues or they are frail aged—to be able to have access to that. What I was trying to indicate is that may be accessible for the two areas that have been identified by the mover, which included people with other disabilities and/or people who were the subject of some kind of restriction arising out of an emergency management declaration or public health restriction or biosecurity act restriction.

I think there is some merit in starting some work as to what is going to be included in this. I think just from the very point of view of working with the Electoral Commissioner as to what they have in mind is not a bad idea. As I indicated before, to the best of my knowledge no draft regulations have been prepared for this bill or anything that comes out of this bill.

Whilst we have telephone-assisted voting, it is in a different format at the moment because we are using the old piece of technology from Western Australia and it requires you to actually attend at a place. I think there is something in the report about this—that of the many people who were sight impaired, I think only a couple of hundred took up this opportunity, using this fairly dated software from Western Australia that was acquired. I think that the mover is right that it is worthwhile our getting started on that. I will put in place a request for that to commence so that we hopefully have something to be able to look at.

As I have indicated in relation to corflutes, there are regulations for that because during consultation people asked for that and also for the legislation proposed in relation to funding amendments, which is for debate in this house. There has certainly been provision of draft regulations so that can be reviewed. I think that probably would be helpful, ultimately, for the parliament to have a look at, particularly by the time we get to the Legislative Council to deal with that.

If any members have any other areas they think ought to be included in prescription, other than the disability definition and the emergency management definition, then we would be happy to hear from them on that. How those two would work and how they should be best described I will leave to the experts on the drafting, but they seem to be worthy inclusions.

Mr PICTON: Under the provisions proposed here, is there anything that would stop a future government from using the regulation power to prescribe that all voters would be eligible for assisted voting under this provision?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I suppose that is strictly possible. This is not a cheap process, let's be realistic here. The employment of people to supervise this type of voting is not insignificant. Extra funding has been requested by the Electoral Commissioner to make this service available, so it is not one that is seen as really affordable in presenting for election. We may need to extend the time for voting even to a much greater period or greater time frame if we are going to have everyone deal with this electronically.

This has been identified for certain categories that are currently alienated from being able to vote unless they have assistance. We have older technology. We now have a new program. The cost of that is in place, but it still has to be populated with people to make it happen, so it is not something that is a cheaper option. This is, on balance, more expensive, as I would see it. We would have to look at employing what might be thousands of people to actually operate something like this if the whole population went onto telephone-assisted voting.

We may well be at a stage where we are starting to look at whether electronic voting is something where a package is developed that is workable and is actually reliable, but at the moment, from the ones I have read about in other jurisdictions overseas, they have been disasters. It does not mean there will not be in the future. I do not know whether other members get people writing to them like they do to me, saying, 'Why can't we just have electronic voting?' There is a good reason: nobody is actually coming up with anything that is actually foolproof enough or sufficiently reliable.

There was one out of Florida, I remember, where it was like a computer printout, and when it came to the actual counting of the vote there were defects in the holes that were punched. I think the declaration of that poll ended up in the Supreme Court of the United States. These things are not without a fair bit of work to go to.

There is certainly no intention at this point in applying such an expensive piece of technology with the support that is needed to supervise it—take the phone calls, supervise the vote, ensure that that is transferred. We are certainly not anticipating this would be widespread.

Mr PICTON: The Attorney in her contribution highlights the expense of the technology that would need to be in place. We have of course discussed many times that we are essentially five minutes to midnight until the next election. What work has happened in terms of procuring the technology that would need to be put in place to enact this section for the next state election? The Attorney says she was in receipt also of cost estimates from the Electoral Commissioner in terms of what those costs would be. What are the costs of enacting these provisions?

Presumably the cost, as per the Attorney's last contribution, would also depend on how many people she regulates would be eligible for this provision as well. Your determination in that regulation would also presumably determine the cost. Presumably there are estimates that have been made on how many people would use it. Are we going to get this technology up in place in time? Is there already technology that has been worked out, ready to go, and how much is this likely to cost?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I cannot remember offhand how much it is, but I know I have sought and obtained approval for extra funding for the Electoral Commissioner for various things that he wants to do, including telephone-assisted voting, so he has put in a submission. It has been approved, so my understanding is, yes, that is available.

I am sure he has done some modelling as to how many would use it. I remember, and it is also in the report, his suggestion that there was a low take-up of the option that was available for sight-impaired people under the Western Australian model, when they bought that second-hand from Western Australia. It may be because you physically had to go to the place that people thought, 'I might just go to the polling booth anyway and get some assistance there.'

This is designed to be obviously much more user-friendly. Certainly, we have provided some money. In relation to a memo that I had received from the Electoral Commissioner in October 2020, it said, 'The Attorney-General, as the minister responsible for the Electoral Commissioner's budget, approved the proposal to the Treasurer for an increase in the Electoral Commission's budget for the conduct of the 2022 state election by $150,000 for operating expenditure for the 2021-22 year.' That was to provide for the 'telephone voting as a method of voting to assist those electors who are vision impaired, otherwise disabled or overseas'. So that is the cohort he had identified as needing that extra money. I assume that was for all the people who were sitting on the other end of the line.

Dr CLOSE: Just to follow up, when the modelling was being done what assumptions were built into that modelling for who would be eligible to use this, because presumably it would cost and would operate in very different ways depending on their eligibility?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Those three: sight-impaired, disabled and overseas.

Dr CLOSE: What consultation has been undertaken with disability advocacy groups on the best approach for this and also the best way to capture it in legislation?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I would have to ask the Electoral Commissioner on that matter. I know that obviously he had a consultation with the RSB because they were using the services at their premises for the last election with the Western Australian technology. As I said, the uptake was very low.

It is identified here that ECSA worked in partnership with the Royal Society for the Blind to implement the Adelaide-based trial of electronically assisted voting software called VoteAssist, for those who do not know, which has been successfully used at the previous Western Australian state election. VoteAssist uses specifically designed computer terminals coupled with headphones and a numeric keyboard and audio prompts guiding the elector through the voting process.

It goes on to say that it was only used by 100 South Australians, rather than a couple of hundred. It requires voters with vision impairment to vote in person, etc. The Electoral Commissioner has advised of the situation that occurred with the overseas voting. At the 2018 state election, 712 postal voting packs were issued to South Australian electors overseas, using Australia Post's International Economy Air service. Of these, just 48 postal votes (6.7 per cent) arrived back in time to be admitted.

In the 2019 Cheltenham and Enfield by-elections, 81 postal voting packages were issued to South Australian electors located overseas, but this time ECSA used Australia Post's International Express Post service at approximately three times the unit cost. Of those, just nine postal votes (11 per cent) arrived back in time to be admitted to the count.

I think the challenges in relation to that are obvious and who knows how many people are trapped overseas as a result of COVID. Yes, the request to me to get the extra money—which I have secured—is to deal with sight-impaired, disability and overseas voters.

Clause passed.

Clauses 30 to 32 passed.

Clause 33.

Mr PICTON: I am sure we can all agree that it has been a frustrating thing to have the wait for postal and pre-poll votes, and this section is trying to address that issue, in part by now allowing pre-poll booths to be counted before polling day. However, that is quite a substantial change to the way that elections have been conducted, to have votes counted before the polling day finishes. It says 'at such times and in such manner before the close of poll as determined by the Electoral Commissioner'. That is basically all the detail we get on how that conduct is set to take place, except, of course, in relation to within the act in requirements prescribed by the regulations.

This is a pretty substantial change to the way the scrutiny of the votes takes place. Yet again this is another area where there has been no detail codified in the legislation about how that would operate. I do understand that there are some states—and I would be interested to get the confirmation of which jurisdictions have this pre close of the poll scrutiny of votes taking place already, but this a big change to make without any details.

Does the Attorney have the details of how this count would be conducted? Will there be secrecy requirements, and, if so, how will they be maintained in how the count will be conducted? What will be the security arrangements in place around that count as well? How far before the close of polling day is it envisaged that the count of these pre-poll votes starts? These are all questions that I think should be answered. I think ultimately it would be better if they were codified in the legislation, but, at the very least, can the Attorney outline what work has taken place and what she envisages the regulations will say?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I have indicated, I have not either sighted or understood that any regulations have been finalised for this bill, but, for the reasons that have been outlined, I think there is some merit in that being advanced. Let me put this on the record: clause 33 would provide for the new scrutiny provisions of ordinary pre-poll votes during polling day at such times and in such a manner as determined by the commissioner and regulation.

The proposed amendment to section 89 provides that any scrutiny undertaken before close of polls must be in accordance with the act and regulations. The Electoral Commission has provided information about the system used in New Zealand, which requires early counting to occur in a restricted area and a range of rules and restrictions apply to ensure the security of the restricted area. It is intended that new regulations will set out the details of how the scrutiny undertaken before the close of polls will occur in a secure manner.

I have inquired as to whether there have been any problems in relation to New Zealand, which has been an early convert to this approach, and I understand there has been no breach of security as such. There have not been any problems identified in relation to this process. Recommendation 16, if I now go to page 70 of the election report, relating to the scrutiny of ordinary pre-poll votes during polling day, states:

As the number of declaration votes cast at pre-poll centres increases at state elections, the counting process becomes more drawn out, and the more likely it becomes that results in close elections remain unknown for several days. ECSA recognises that a situation could arise in a close election with a large number of declaration votes where South Australians might have to wait for a week after polling day to know the outcome of the election due to the extra time needed for the count.

The current declaration vote scrutiny process cannot take place until the week after polling day once the rolls have been scanned and declaration envelopes delivered to each Returning Officer. A number of jurisdictions—the ACT, the Commonwealth, New Zealand, NT, Tasmania and Victoria—have resolved this problem by issuing the majority of pre-poll votes as ordinary votes and then counting these on polling day. ECSA recommends this approach be adopted in South Australia and seeks legislative change to do so.

…if ECSA is permitted to issue ordinary votes at pre-poll centres to electors from the electoral district where the centre is located, this will ensure that most pre-poll votes are ordinary votes and can be counted sooner. Following the New Zealand model, on the evening prior to polling day these ordinary votes cast will be transferred to the central processing centre, where they would be counted on polling day in a restricted area under tight security conditions to guarantee the secrecy of the count until after polls close. This would result in a much larger number of votes being included in the results reported on election night and provide the public with greater knowledge of the outcome of the election that same night. The resultant smaller number of pre-poll votes issued as declaration votes would be scrutinised as usual in the week after polling day to ensure their validity before their inclusion in the count.

There is some extra detail here, I am advised, of the New Zealand scheme. This has been provided by ECSA:

1. The early count must be conducted in a 'restricted area'. The Act defines this as an area designated for the purpose of counting pre-poll votes and with features that:

(i) prevent people not in the area from seeing or hearing any aspect of the count; and

(ii) permit the returning officer to control who may enter or exit the area.

2. Access to the restricted areas is restricted to the returning officer, his or her assistants and one appointed scrutineer per constituency candidate. To guarantee this the Electoral Commission employs security guards to control access to each restricted area.

3. Signage at the entrance and exit to the restricted area states that it is an offence to enter or exit without the express authorisation of the returning officer.

4. Notice must be given in writing by the returning officer to each constituency candidate about the time and place at which the early count will commence. Each candidate may appoint (in a written and signed declaration) a single scrutineer to witness the early count. Every scrutineer must sign a declaration agreeing to the conditions and other requirements issued by the Electoral Commission to maintain the secrecy of the early count.

5. No person who enters the restricted area may leave before the close of poll without the express authorisation of the returning officer.

6. No scrutineer may enter the restricted area with a device such as a mobile phone that enables information to be conveyed outside the area.

7. Any person who fails to abide by the conditions commits an offence and may be fined.

In preparing regulations regard will be had to the safeguards set out in the New Zealand legislation.

Clearly, if it works, obviously that is a model to be looked at. They have had a number of elections using this model. It sounds very much like a beefed up scrutineering that we have at 6 o'clock at most polling booths, but there will be security guards there as well.

Certainly, in all those lovely hours I spent with the former member for Enfield, Michael Atkinson, in scrutineering at the electoral offices—

Mr Boyer: Enfield was Rau. Croydon.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Croydon, I beg your pardon. Rau was not there—I was definitely with the Hon. Michael Atkinson. We spent many hours locked up in these places and certainly they were not using this direct model. In relation to the scrutineering on recounts, for example, there are very strict rules: you cannot touch any of the ballot papers, all those sorts of things, no phones available.

Clearly, there has to be a level of scrutiny. It seems to work in other jurisdictions and others are signing up in this way. I think it is time that we did and it certainly has the support of the Electoral Commissioner. Again, just so that it is absolutely clear about what each will be responsible for in this area, it is worthwhile us advancing or requesting the Electoral Commissioner to advance, in this context that he is suggesting, some drafts for the other place to look at, if and when we ever finish the debate here.

The CHAIR: That is in the hands of those in the committee.

Mr PICTON: The Attorney in her contribution raised the New Zealand model as the one that the government is looking at to implement—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PICTON: The Electoral Commissioner, so not necessarily even the government, is looking at in terms of putting into regulation. As I understand it, and as I think the Attorney alluded to, the provisions in the New Zealand model are legislated in the relevant electoral act in New Zealand, so they are codified in the legislation there. I believe some things you referred to there said, 'The act says' etc.

If we are looking at New Zealand as a model, they have a model which you outlined very specifically. All their requirements on the face of it, without having seen them in detail, appear to be sensible in terms of how the security of this should be put in place, whereas the model you are proposing is, 'Oh, leave it up to the regulations. The government will tell you later.' Why have you not looked at codifying those arrangements in the legislation, particularly given the detail you have on the New Zealand model, rather than once again leaving that to regulation?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am not sure that the member is correct in assuming the procedures for this are actually set out in the New Zealand Electoral Act, but I will certainly have a look at that. It may be some addendum to it, but we will certainly have a look at it. In the information I have been provided, it just says that in preparing regulation regard would be had to the safeguards set out in the New Zealand legislation. Well, that could be in the act and the regulation, just like we have a similar model here. We both inherited the British system, and I think there is every likelihood they have a similar situation to ours.

In whatever format it is, I think it is reasonable for the house to see what is being proposed. I have been provided this information from the ECSA as to what they would be recommending we look at. If it is tried and tested and secure, then it is probably a good reason that we do. But I think that is a matter we can have a look at between the houses.

Dr CLOSE: This may again have to take some research and therefore come between the houses, but have their really been no examples of a breach of security, no scrutineer who smuggles a phone in, no-one who leaves? Are we to believe that that is possible—that human nature has not been able to sneak around the rules? You are satisfied that there has been no breach?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: What I have indicated to the committee is that I made that inquiry: 'Well, does it work? Has there been a problem? Has there been a leak of votes before whatever it is—the 6, 7 or 8 o'clock cut-off time?' But apparently not. Whether there have been breaches of the rules but without there being a prosecution or without there being a consequence of disclosure, for example, which in some way adversely affected the vote or the count or the early release of information, I am advised this has worked in New Zealand, so I think it is reasonable that we have a look at their system.

Mr PICTON: I just refer the Attorney-General to the New Zealand Electoral Act 1993, which I am sure she is familiar with—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

Mr PICTON: There's something the Attorney has not read; I am shocked. I refer her in particular to sections 174 and 174A through to 174G. All those separate sections set out the very specific requirements for the preliminary count of votes that takes place in relation to the early vote for New Zealand elections. So it is very clear that there is a model that is codified in the legislation in New Zealand. At least the Electoral Commissioner, if not the government, is looking at that as the model. There does not seem to be any reason why we could not have that codified in this legislation as well.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I have indicated, that is a matter I think ought to be available for consideration in the other place.

The CHAIR: Yes, and we will take that as a comment.

Clause passed.

Clauses 34 and 35 passed.

Clause 36.

Mr PICTON: I move:

Amendment No 15 [Picton–2]—

Page 11, line 27 to page 12, line 9—

This clause will be opposed.

This is an amendment to oppose this clause. Essentially, what the government is seeking to do here is change the decision-making power over false and misleading advertising from the Electoral Commissioner through to SACAT.

As has been raised by members in earlier contributions to the debate, there is some uncertainty as to how SACAT will be able to deal with these matters. Often there is a necessary requirement for decision-making about misleading advertising that requires a ruling within hours. The Electoral Commissioner and previous commissioners have been able to accommodate this, and we have not yet heard any adequate explanation from the Attorney in relation to these concerns.

I know in my second reading speech I noted that, certainly from my interactions with SACAT so far, it is a very lengthy process to get consideration of matters through SACAT. One FOI matter underway at the moment has been going for many months. How that works in the context of an election campaign I do not think has been adequately explained. Hence, we believe that the current arrangements in place that have worked well would be more suitable to maintain, particularly given the lack of explanation from the Attorney-General.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: This is a matter that has been raised by the Electoral Commissioner. I think what is important is that it stems from the election report, where the Electoral Commissioner sets out the significant challenges of regulating misleading advertising. We are fairly unique here. We have this clause, and I think there is a general consensus that it is probably a good thing to keep. Certainly, it sets a standard, I suppose, and a means by which there be some integrity in the material that is published during an election campaign, but the Electoral Commissioner says there are a lot of challenges with this, and he has set out in his report the option of how this could be dealt with.

At the moment, the member is absolutely right: there are decisions made by the Electoral Commissioner, sometimes someone he has deputised, to make a decision about whether an advertiser needs to withdraw an advertisement, publish a retraction, etc., and the commissioner or his delegate makes that decision. There is an appellate process, an application that can be made to the Supreme Court seeking orders for withdrawal or retraction.

This is a process that is being introduced to enable SACAT to do that and to have personnel available. As I have indicated, we have had an indication from Judge Hughes, who is the president of the SACAT, identifying that there would need to be some allocation of resource to actually hear these. Time is of the essence. There is no question about that, especially with electronic conveying of information, and if it is false or misleading then of course it needs to be dealt with very quickly.

There were many applications by political parties during the last election. Frankly, some of them were against other parties. In particular, I think Mr Xenophon came under fire quite a bit from other political parties. I know that because I put in a number of complaints myself. I am sure the opposition also did. In any event, it is a process that we have access to. It is fairly unique in South Australia. It is something I think we appreciate having, but it does mean that it impedes the Electoral Commissioner, from his perspective, in getting on with the general administration of the election, getting involved in these fairly partisan disputes. Not that I am suggesting he is partisan, but it can be difficult.

This tribunal option has been considered. I think it ticks all the boxes, because it clearly got to the stage in the last election where there was a significant delay, and having even a couple of days' delay is highly damaging in an election campaign if it is ultimately determined that material is inappropriate. I simply present this as having the support. It has been considered as to how else we would best deal with it.

Obviously, expensive applications can be made to the Supreme Court, but we are talking about having an accessible arbiter to be able to deal with these matters as expeditiously as possible, order retractions and be able to enforce them, which I think would make it much more a scheme of relief than we currently have, and that is to wait in line to have our various grievances dealt with during a very busy election campaign period, usually in that last week.

There is no sinister proposal here. It is designed to be able to make sure that all those who are unfairly treated in advertising during campaigns are able to seek a prompt remedy and relief. Obviously, it will be dismissed if it is frivolous or inadequate in its justification of that, but we would have some dedicated resource to do it.

There has been some consideration about whether magistrates should do this. I know that in previous elections that has been considered. Again, there is the facility to do that and who would do it, particularly magistrates, whereas if we had the SACAT there is a panel of people who could be available to hear these matters and be able to deal with them. This was generally seen as the most expeditious and it is overseen by a Supreme Court judge, Judge Judy Hughes. That is really what we are doing: offering a quicker service that simply is not available through the Electoral Commission and it is something that he has raised not for the first time.

Other reports I have read suggest that we get rid of the clause altogether to save having any disputes. You would not be able to have any disputes. But I think there is a general appetite by parties to have this kept in South Australia and that we have access to it, but we need to be able to find a way to have a prompt remedy.

Mr PICTON: That was a very detailed explanation of why the Electoral Commissioner thinks this needs to be in place, but not a particularly significant explanation of how this is going to be dealt with quickly at the SACAT end. Has the Attorney had conversations with the President of SACAT or SACAT officers about how it would be put in place if this was to be enacted? How many people who sit on SACAT at the moment would hear these matters? What would be the expected turnaround time for a decision, noting, as the Attorney said, that sometimes these have been dealt with within hours previously by the Electoral Commissioner? How will SACAT fast-track that from what can be a lengthy SACAT process at the moment to something that can fit the needs of a fast-paced election campaign?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There was certainly a letter I had from Justice Hughes that talked about resources and so on, but, yes, I did briefly speak to her in one of our meetings about taking on this role. She understood that these are expeditious requirements, and the expectation is that there would be a complaint lodged. Time would be allocated in one of the hearing rooms there and it may need to be by telephone or audio, depending on where people are for that purpose. Notice would be given to the other side. There would be an expectation to present the argument and so forth, so every minute counts in this. It would be same day resolution, at the very least, maybe within a couple of hours. Courts can act quickly in these circumstances.

Some of these applications are made in this way by the Electoral Commissioner or his deputy during election campaigns, but when a flood of them comes in you just have to wait your turn. Not for me, of course. You have to wait your turn and really the value in complaining can be completely lost within the day, so this is why the commissioner is looking for some relief. He just cannot deal with these and so we have to find something that is expeditious and gives everyone a fair opportunity to be able to submit their position.

At the moment, as you know, you put in a submission and you then get emailed back to you a copy of what the response is from the other side—yes, no, rubbish, whatever the answer is—and then there is some adjudication. Sometimes the representative adjudicator comes back to you to say, 'I want some more information on this or that.' They attempt to do it as quickly as they possibly can. I understand that, but I do not think it is as good as it needs to be.

The Electoral Commissioner is not a judge and is not necessarily trained in this area of work. That is not to say that he has not had experienced senior people over the years to help with this, but we need somebody who can do it expeditiously and, if necessary, act as though it was an injunction application and promptly deal with it. That is why it is being proposed, there is no other reason, unless the Labor Party held the view, 'Let's just cancel having false and misleading advertising clauses altogether.' But I think there is a general appetite, we have had the benefit of it in South Australia, and I think most people want to keep it.

But these reports keep coming back: these are all the problems with us having to deal with this, we are not geared up to deal with it and we really need some assistance if you are going to keep it. Well, actually, okay, let's say we keep it; let's just find someone else who can adjudicate these things.

Mr PICTON: Will there be any additional resources provided to SACAT to undertake this new function?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: My recollection—and that is why I was looking for the letter—of my discussion with Justice Hughes was that she expected that there may be some extra expense just in the time of having somebody allocated. It may not turn out to be. I have received no direct submission from her to say, 'I need to have funding for a week to set aside somebody to make these decisions or hear these applications.' More likely, I think it would be a matter of seeing what happens if this legislation is passed, and, if clearly they need extra resources, we would need to budget for it in future. She has the personnel to do it and that is not the issue. The fact is that if they are doing this job they are not going to be able to do other normal business work.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.