Electoral (Regulation of Corflutes) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 21 September 2021.)

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (16:35): I rise to continue my contribution in regard to the Electoral (Regulation of Corflutes) Amendment Bill 2021. The interruption of time since I last raised my contribution has given me time to reflect upon what perhaps is an embarrassing collection that I have but perhaps is shared by many people in this house: I have a collection of corflutes.

Members interjecting:

Mr PICTON: I certainly have a collection of corflutes with my head on them.

Mr Pederick: Burn them!

Mr PICTON: The member for Hammond suggests I burn my corflutes. I think that might create more environmental damage than at least what you, in supporting this legislation, are trying to address.

An honourable member: Have you got a Bob Hawke?

Mr PICTON: I don't have a Bob Hawke, unfortunately, which would be very valuable now I have to say, but I do have a variety of other corflutes, some of which are probably valuable in hindsight and some of which are only of sentimental value to me.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PICTON: I've definitely got a Kevin Rudd and a Julia Gillard. It is the leader before them that I hate to reflect previously was a member and leader of the federal Australian Labor Party I would not want to do anything with. I suspect probably everybody here has a variety of different corflutes of various candidates and some maybe that you have picked up of opponents over the years. It certainly has been part of our political campaigning in South Australia and indeed around the country. While this proposition has been put that this will ban corflutes, that there will be no more corflutes and that supposedly other states do not have corflutes, actually that is not true.

There are corflutes in other states, there are corflutes that are used around the country and, if this legislation happens, there will still be corflutes that political parties will be making and producing and distributing. This legislation just limits where they can be put. The environmental argument that has been put by the Attorney-General and by others, that somehow this is going to lead to this dramatic reduction in waste and output, is not true because all of us here know very well that if this legislation is passed we are all going to still make our corflutes; we are just going to transition from using Stobie poles to using private residences to put up those corflutes.

Some people regard that as very worthwhile. I know the former member for Croydon, the Hon. Michael Atkinson, certainly used that technique in his electorate to get the dizzying heights of local support he often did by having the corflutes on private property. No doubt we will all be doing that, and all our opponents will be doing that, and all the Legislative Council candidates will be doing that as well.

We will all be using the same corflute material because my understanding of corflute material from having interacted with it a lot over the past how many years—20-odd years—is that it is very sturdy, relatively inexpensive and can withstand significant weather events. It makes it an ideal use for these purposes, and so we will use them and manufacture them in the same way that it happens at the moment

I do not see that there will be any environmental benefit whatsoever because they will still be produced and distributed, but they will be in different locations. People will be ringing all their local supporters to suss out where the best spots are in terms of people's houses that will have the best visibility, and they will be plastering them with corflutes—perhaps more than we have ever seen before—along some of these fence lines that people have across different electorates right across the state. That is a completely spurious argument in terms of corflutes and environmental impact.

I think it is fair to say that many of us recycle our corflutes. I have to say that this will be the third time that my corflutes get a run in the forthcoming election. Having been manufactured back in 2013, they will be getting a run in 2022. Perhaps there are some members who will be replicating them more than that. Perhaps the member for Hammond, who I know has some very prominent corflutes on his own—

Mr Pederick: I've got 700 of them.

Mr PICTON: He's got 700 of them, he says. He has probably never had a challenger, so I am not sure why he would have 700 corflutes.

Mr Pederick: You've got to remind people who you are.

Mr PICTON: That's right—and that's what we are trying to help you to do, member for Hammond: remind people who you are. I know that whenever you are driving down to the South-East there is a local landmark when you are going to the good people of the member for MacKillop's electorate. The landmark you pass is the member for Hammond's property, where his corflutes are on permanent historical museum display.

Mr McBride: They need to be upgraded to the member for MacKillop.

Mr PICTON: That's true. I understand that that property will soon be in the electorate of MacKillop, so the big question becomes: do the corflutes supporting the member for Hammond go down and do they get put up with the member for MacKillop's electorate posters?

Mr Pederick: He will have to speak to me nicely.

Mr PICTON: Yes, the member for Hammond says that he will have to speak to him nicely. For all I know, this has been part of the debates and considerations in crisis meetings that have been held over the past week with the Premier, about where those corflutes will be in the electorate of MacKillop on the member for Hammond's property.

Mr Pederick interjecting:

Mr PICTON: That's right. My point in raising the member for Hammond's corflutes is that I suspect that those 700 corflutes have been used a number of times and have been recycled—

Mr Pederick: Recycled and recycled.

Mr PICTON: Exactly. 'Recycled and recycled,' he says—absolutely re-used.

Mr Pederick: Very youthful.

Mr PICTON: Very youthful, that's right. You keep looking better and better on those corflutes in comparison to how you appear to us here in the chamber.

Mr Pederick: Just be careful now.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Hammond, I understand that you are appreciating all this attention, but it is actually the member for Kaurna's speech, so interjections will cease.

Mr PICTON: As I said, these are some of the most famous corflutes, I think, in South Australia—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PICTON: —that's right—down there on the Dukes Highway. I think that it is a sure sign not only of the durability of that material that they are still there but also that, as he has outlined, the member for Hammond recycles his corflutes election after election after election. Certainly, I will be doing that again, as I am sure other members will. Perhaps in the electorate of Bragg there will be corflutes from when the member for Bragg was first elected back in the 2002 election. Those corflutes perhaps will be getting their 20-year anniversary across suburbs such as Burnside and the like in the electorate of Bragg.

Very clearly, these corflutes are valuable. While they are affordable, they are not cheap. We all know that. They are a significant campaign investment, of course, though it is a lot cheaper than other types of advertising available, such as television or radio advertising.

However, you do not want to waste that material, and the benefit of the corflute is that it can be used again and again and again. I know that many members, when they have retired or have not been successful in elections, have found various ways to make sure they are able to recycle or re-use them in various ways. Kindergartens and childcare centres have been the worthy recipients of many corflutes over time for use in those centres.

It is something we have actually taken the lead in, making sure we no longer put electorate names on corflutes. This was a leading cause of wastage of corflutes for many people, such as the now member for Hurtle Vale who was previously the member for Fisher. If she had produced a whole lot of corflutes with the name Fisher on them, they would have automatically been wasted and would have had to be replaced with Hurtle Vale ones to reflect the new name of her electorate.

Similarly, other members have had their electorates changed probably at least three times. This is something people can make sensible decisions about, in terms of what they put on their corflutes, that minimises the risk that they will need to be thrown out and replaced by new ones in the future.

Another telling factor about the environmental issue is that one of the staunchest opponents of this legislation was one of the staunchest proponents of environmental protection—probably the staunchest advocate for environmental protection—the Parliament of South Australia has ever had, and that was the Hon. Mark Parnell MLC. Mr Parnell, who has recently retired from the parliament, was an opponent of this legislation, when it was considered in the other place, in relation to the elements around corflutes.

Very clearly, he did not see that any supposed environmental benefit was outweighed by the impacts it would have in relation to our democracy, particularly the impact it would have on small parties and Independents having the ability to have their say. The importance of that significantly outweighed the importance in relation to making sure there was supposedly some environmental benefit—although as I have said, I am very doubtful that is actually the case.

I invite members to look at the contribution made by the Hon. Mark Parnell in the other place, and reflect upon how important it is for members of minor parties or Independents to be able to have their say through the use of corflutes. That would be a real evening out of our democracy in terms of the ability of people who are not in major parties, or not backed up by significantly wealthy donors who can contribute significantly in relation to television advertisements, newspaper advertisements, radio advertisements and the like.

This is worth reflecting on, particularly in relation to what we have seen in Australia with the advent of Clive Palmer and the United Australia Party, or whatever it is called: that a very, very rich person—supposedly a billionaire—can dump a huge amount of money into advertising. We have seen that, and we are seeing that right at the moment.

You can almost open up The Advertiser every single day and it has a front page advertisement from Clive Palmer and his former Liberal Party MP, now the head of the party, Craig Kelly. They spout all sorts of things about COVID and the evilness of COVID restrictions on the front page of daily newspapers right around the country. In the last federal election we also saw blanketing of the airwaves by Clive Palmer in relation to all sorts of advertisements, largely getting stuck into the Labor Party.

There was one thing you did not see from Clive Palmer, and that was corflutes. You did not see a significant number of corflutes put up compared with the number of his television advertisements. I think there is a clear reason for this. Corflutes are an evening-out factor because you need people on the ground who can put them up. All of us here have been elected not because we are only one person but because we have a range of supporters in our own electorates who have been able to help us.

Clearly, if you are running a ticket, where you are just bombarding advertisements out from wherever your Queensland base is into different states around the country, you do not have people on the ground to do that quite significant job that we all in this chamber probably know quite well. You get your ladder, you get your corflutes, you get your wire or your cable ties—and there is a great debate about whether wire or cable ties are the preferred method of corflute construction. I prefer a combination of cable tie and wire to ensure that it is securely fastened.

This is a ritual we all know in this parliament, as do supporters of both major and minor parties in South Australia. If you are a very wealthy person, you can bombard the airwaves but you cannot have people out putting up these posters on Stobie poles unless you have a proper network of support out in the community.

By removing the ability for people power at a relatively lower cost to contribute to that debate and advertise at a local level, we are really shifting the balance in terms of who can get their ads on TV, who can get their ads in the paper, who can get their ads on YouTube and social media. It becomes more about who has the bigger bucks to contribute to the debate rather than who has people on the ground. The ability to have advertising on the ground will be a significant factor.

That is a key reason why you see the likes of Mark Parnell, who you think would be opposed to any potential production of something that might be waste, saying that it is really important for parties that are not backed by millionaires and billionaires to have their say—or Independents, for that matter.

There are a few other matters I would like to touch on in relation to this legislation. One is that this is another piece of legislation that the Attorney is bringing in to change our electoral laws, as I have said, at the last minute. Another matter is that we see regulation-making powers being put in the bill that will give the Attorney, via cabinet, via Executive Council, via the Governor, the ability to introduce regulations after parliament rises, which looks more likely than not to be the middle of November. So somewhere in late November, December, January, February, we could see regulations put in that the parliament would not be able to review.

We would not have the ability to have proper scrutiny via the Legislative Review Committee or by either chamber of parliament being able to disallow the regulations that have been put in because we will not be here because there are no more sittings scheduled by the government. There is an optional week I think at the end of November or December, and maybe that will happen and maybe it will not and, if not, that is it.

So we have a huge amount of time when the government could introduce their own regulations without the scrutiny of this parliament and change the laws yet again through those regulations. We have seen that the intent of the government is to change the laws to best suit their chances of retaining government at the next election. I suspect we will see that play out again through any regulations that are put through if this legislation passes.

There is one thing that I will draw particular attention to that members may have overlooked in relation to this legislation, and that is the drafting that is being done by the Attorney-General in relation to new section 125 under (1c).

(1c) If an electoral advertising poster is exhibited by or on behalf of a candidate in contravention of…(1a) or (1b), the candidate is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $5,000.

Everybody in this chamber should be very clear on what that means, except for you, Deputy Speaker, who will not be a candidate, to my knowledge—not a Liberal candidate at least—at the next election.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will not be a candidate.

Mr PICTON: You are not going to be a candidate at all; that is a shame. You would get in at a canter as an Independent, I am sure. It is all the rage to be an Independent these days, I hear, so do not rule out your options too early. On that side of the house, it is all the rage.

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

Mr PICTON: No, just a little nod to people in the country, if you want to oppose the basketball stadium, then they might want to support Independent candidates. If you look at the drafting of (1c):

(1c) If an electoral advertising poster is exhibited by or on behalf of a candidate in contravention of subsection (1a) or (1b), the candidate is guilty of an offence.

That is not the party director, that is not anybody else, it is the candidate. The drafting of this is such that the candidate does not need to be involved in putting up the poster. The candidate does not need to have knowledge of the poster being put up. If a poster is exhibited by or on behalf of a candidate in contravention of the section, the candidate is guilty of an offence.

If somebody were to put up in the seat of Bragg posters with the Attorney-General's picture and name on them saying, 'Vote Liberal,' or, 'Vote for the Basketball Stadium,' and those posters were on Stobie poles throughout the Bragg electorate, then under this section that the Attorney-General is moving the Attorney-General, the member for Bragg, would be guilty of an offence as a candidate. She might not have had any knowledge that this was going to occur. This might not have been done necessarily by her own party, supporters, staff or anything like that.

Who is to say who has done it? There is no test as to the knowledge of it and there is no test as to whether it was done by a supporter of yours. There is no test as to whether it was done by somebody involved in the campaign, authorised or unauthorised. It is a pretty clear test. If this happens, if the poster goes up, then the candidate is guilty of an offence.

Each one of us who is a candidate is going to have a pretty significant time making sure that there is no poster that goes up in contravention of this law. If somebody puts up five posters for you rather than four at a polling booth, if one of your volunteers does that, if an enthusiastic young Liberal volunteer in the electorate of Stuart wants to put up a fifth poster telling people to vote for the member for Stuart to support the basketball stadium, then that fifth poster will lead to the member for Stuart being guilty of an offence under this proposal. Even if he had no knowledge of it, did not authorise it, would not have supported it, he would be guilty of an offence and subject to a maximum penalty of $5,000.

That is a very significant way that this legislation has been drafted. It is really putting candidates in line for things they might not have had any knowledge about, had not supported and did not want to have happen or could have been done for malicious purposes by somebody else and the candidate could be liable and guilty of an offence in contravention of that section. Similarly, the case occurs in (1d) in relation to the Legislative Council:

(1d) If an electoral advertising poster is exhibited by or on behalf of a group in contravention of subsection (1a) or (1b), the candidate whose name on the ballot paper is at the top of the group is guilty of an offence.

I have to check who the top of the group who has been nominated for the Legislative Council is. I believe it might be the Hon. Michelle Lensink, so let's just say it is the Hon. Michelle Lensink. If somebody in Adelaide, or somebody in Booleroo Centre, or somebody in Ceduna puts up posters for voting for the Legislative Council for the Liberal Party, Michelle Lensink is guilty of an offence under this, even if she had no knowledge of it, would not have supported it, even if it was not by a volunteer or supporter of the Liberal Party at all.

That candidate who is the top of the ballot paper for that group—in this case, for the Liberal Party, as my understanding would be, the Hon. Michelle Lensink—bang, guilty of an offence, $5,000. I think all of us should think very carefully about what the Attorney-General is putting us all up for in terms of the potential for this to be used maliciously. I do not think people have really considered the implications—

Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I move:

That the time allotted for the remainder of the second reading speech of this bill be nine minutes; the time allotted for each clause and schedule in the committee be five minutes each, with the committee stage of the bill lasting no longer than 6.45pm this evening; and the time allotted for the third reading being a maximum of five minutes.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is moved that, in relation to standing order 114—

Mr PICTON: Is there a debate? Can we debate that?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: No.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It has been moved, there is no debate and it is not amendable either, the Clerk advises me.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 24

Noes 20

Majority 4

Motion thus carried.

Mr PICTON: This is a disgraceful display by a government mired in scandal that are trying to guillotine this debate to change the electoral laws on the eve of an election because they think they can get a better chance of winning this election by stitching up the laws at the last minute, one minute to midnight, on the same day that the Ombudsman has referred this government's corruption to the OPI for investigation and assessment.

It is an outrageous display by an absolutely corrupt government in the way that they are treating this parliament with contempt by not allowing a proper consideration and proper debate in relation to our electoral laws in relation to the rules that this election will be fought on before the next election, so we oppose this legislation in the strongest possible terms. I will allow one of my colleagues to make a contribution before they cut off debate on this entirely.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens, before you begin, the motion that was passed was that the debate should last for nine minutes. I have that on my book as 5.18pm. I will not deprive you of any time; I am just reminding you.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (17:09): I know you will not, sir. Why would a government that has been referred to ICAC want to ban election posters? I will tell you why: because we might put it on election posters and plaster it across South Australia. We might want to put on election posters that the Premier is involved in a scandal. We might want to put that staff are being moved around electorate offices because of a scandal. What are this government afraid of? They are afraid of scrutiny, they are afraid of transparency and they want to change the rules of an election campaign at one minute to midnight.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: That's what you did.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, that is not what we did: it is the opposite. Whatever changes we made applied to the election after, not the one we were about to face. I have to say that it speaks volumes about the integrity of this government and how mired they are in corruption—because the fish rots from the head. If only there was an aspirate to the job who had an inch of integrity and who might want to say that it is impossible to have a fair and democratic contest by changing the electoral rules this late, especially when a Premier is mired in scandal.

I have to say that today's revelations have done a lot to change the political mood of this parliament. It is a government that is frightened of scrutiny. It is a government that is frightened of being held to account. It is a government that is fearful of debate.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order: the member has already raised all these issues in his grieve and we are now on a corflutes bill. The member has—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order on my left! I cannot hear the Attorney-General.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I would suggest relevance, sir, rather than rehashing the member for Torrens' failed cross-examination this morning.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure the member for Torrens will come back to corflutes.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you, sir—West Torrens. Far be it from me to have corflutes printed up and plastered across the seat of Bragg saying that the Deputy Premier is running a protection racket for a Premier being investigated for corruption. I will not be able to do that. I will not be able to say in the seat of, let's say, Newland that staff are being moved out. Why are those staff being moved out? Why are they being relocated? We could put that on the corflute, but again the government do not want the scrutiny. Why? They are fearful of the public seeing who they really are.

For example, perhaps the member for Stuart would not like plastered throughout the seat of Port Augusta and Port Pirie his devotion to a brand-new basketball stadium in the city—or perhaps that ramping is out of control, or perhaps that this government has mismanaged our finances, or perhaps that there has been minister after minister who has had to resign because of scandal, or that there are members facing corruption allegations, or that the Office of the Premier and the South Australian Liberal Party have had a prima facie investigation or assessment of their conduct plastered on billboards across South Australia.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a point of order. Member for West Torrens, please be seated.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I would hope, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you would resent that threat he just made to you.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I assume from that, Attorney, you are picking up on the fact that the member for West Torrens referred to 'you', being me; is that correct? We will direct our comments through the Chair rather than at them, member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sir, you know the regard I have for you and your career. I have to say that whenever a government attempts to limit democratic debate, limit expressions of political will, limit the discourse in and amongst communities—let's face it, sometimes the only way you can get a message across is by putting it on a pole. It is the only way sometimes you can get a message across, because the government has this massive microphone and now we know they also have our data. With our data, they use it probably corruptly. That is why we need this democratic—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order: I would ask for an apology and a withdrawal.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I uphold the point of order. Member for West Torrens, I understand you are making a contribution on corflutes. Be careful with the language you use.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will, sir. I will not be using any expletives.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, that's good. I am pleased.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Because that would be unparliamentary.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Because the only thing we have left in this parliament is our free speech. It is all we have left because the government control the numbers in the house and they are guillotining us from debating a bill. They control a massive amount of money for government advertising and we understand there is going to be an avalanche of government advertising and we understand that they are misusing data collected on government websites, people looking after COVID information.

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

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So all we have are election posters.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, member for West Torrens, there is a point of order. Member for West Torrens, could you take your seat, please. Attorney-General, you raised a point of order.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes. I am offended at the allegation in relation to this that has just been made by the member for West Torrens—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, member for West Torrens.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —and I would ask him to withdraw and apologise.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: So the Attorney has taken offence to your suggestion, member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I don't care, sir. I am not withdrawing it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, before you go on, she has taken offence. We all know that triggers an apology from a member—a withdrawal; I do not need you to apologise but you could withdraw it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What am I withdrawing, sir?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are withdrawing the allegation of—you were discussing corruption—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, sir, I was.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: —in relation to—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The government. Yes, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The government, yes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The allegation was that the government was collating data and that it was corrupt.

Mr Szakacs: You're not the government.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I beg your pardon?

Mr Szakacs: You're not the government.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am part of the government.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens, you only have four or five minutes left. I am going to ask that you withdraw the words, whatever they might be, which the Attorney finds offensive. Just do it and get on with it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sir, no, I will not, unless I know what the term is. What is it I am meant to withdraw? What have I said that is unparliamentary, sir?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, it is not unparliamentary.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, then I am not required to withdraw under standing orders, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is just that the Attorney-General found—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I don't care.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: —it offensive. Well, perhaps you take your seat, member for West Torrens. Attorney, could you remind us what was offensive and then we can deal with it.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member indicated words to the effect that the government were collecting data that was corrupt and I take offence to that allegation.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Deputy Speaker, I presume, given that we have not had the benefit of the Deputy Premier being able to refer to a specific standing order, let me do it on her behalf. I take it she is referring to standing order 125, 'Offensive words against Member'. The words which she takes offence to were about the government. Is it seriously going to be the ruling of this place that we cannot speak against the government?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Attorney-General is part of the government.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: But she is not the government. She is not a sovereign. She is not the Crown.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: So the plot thickens as time ticks by. Before I go to the Minister for Energy and Mining, the Clerk advises me that the standing order that you refer to, member for Lee, is quite correct and the interpretation is that it has to be offence taken by a member specifically and deliberately to a member.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: Yes, and he did not refer to a member.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. So, member for Torrens—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: West Torrens.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: —back on your feet. I will give you one minute.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: One minute, sir. I will speak for 30 of those and hand over to my colleague the member for Lee and say this: any government that is afraid of free expression has serious questions to answer of itself. What we have seen today is a government that is terrified of free expression and, in a democratic society, governments that fear their citizens do not deserve re-election, especially ones that steal data and misuse it inappropriately. That is why we need corflutes to go out there and expose that corruption. I yield to my friend.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Lee, you have 30 seconds.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 20

Noes 25

Majority 5

Motion thus negatived.

The SPEAKER: The question before the house is that the bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 25

Noes 19

Majority 6

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr PICTON: I think it is fair to say that we will be speaking in relation to each clause. This has been an absolutely shocking display of the arrogance and the lack of transparency and accountability that this government has for the people of South Australia to put this legislation through five minutes to midnight before the next election.

We are already in the campaign period, according to the electoral funding laws. We are months well into that. We are in the shadow of the election. We have a couple of sitting weeks to go of this whole parliamentary term, and now on top of that the government uses the guillotine to force this legislation through without proper discussion and debate of these clauses of legislation. Five minutes for each clause is nowhere near going to examine the length and breadth of the importance of this legislation and for the consideration of the electoral system that it is going to have.

My first question to the Attorney-General is: what consideration have you given in introducing this legislation to the detrimental impact this will have on minor parties and Independents? That impact was summed up excellently by your predecessor as Liberal spokesperson for A-G, Robert Lawson, when he outlined to the parliament the impact this legislation would have on Independents and minor parties?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Each of the political parties has been consulted, as I have indicated. If we are looking back into the history of the 2009 debate, I just refer to the contribution by the member for West Torrens.

Mr PICTON: Wow! Really scintillating stuff. When is it intended that this legislation will come into effect and that this will be enacted?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In clause 2, you will see that it is a date to be fixed by proclamation. In the event that it is the will of the parliament that this be passed, then we will work with the Electoral Commissioner as to the commencement arrangements for that.

Mr PICTON: What analysis has the government done to support its supposed claims of some environmental benefit out of this, given, as I outlined before the guillotine cut me off in relation to my debate, that we will see time and time again people using corflutes particularly for private residences? They will still be able to use corflutes and there may be zero environmental benefit at all from what I can see, despite the fact that the Attorney-General has been going out there claiming that this will have some significant benefit when there seems to be little evidence of that whatsoever.

Have you done any modelling or had any expert opinion on that, or is that just some line you are coming out with to try to sell this bill to, in your view, try to stay in government?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think it has been very clear for some time, and again I refer to the member for West Torrens and the former member for Enfield, who gave a very powerful speech about the environmental carnage and the blight on the environment. There are plenty there to recognise that. Unquestionably, the public want it. The Local Government Association wrote to me and asked for it. This parliament has already passed the abolition of corflutes for their election, so I think there is a certainly very great appetite in the community for it.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I risk offending the Deputy Premier in asking this question. Will all corflutes be banned or just ones that refer to the Premier's department being referred to an integrity agency for potential corruption of the misuse of data?

The CHAIR: No, member for Lee that is out of order. 'Disorderly' I will call it.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Why, sir?

The CHAIR: Well, you are making assertions in this place—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That corflutes will be banned? It is the purpose of the bill, sir.

The CHAIR: No. Would you like to rephrase it? You have 40 seconds to go.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Will all corflutes be banned or merely the ones that refer to the Premier's department being referred—

The CHAIR: Thank you, we will all—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —to the Office of Public Integrity for the potential misuse of South Australians' data?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: All the advertising that is identified under the definition of electoral advertisement under corflutes on public places will be banned, save and except the provision for four corflutes or other advertising material, per candidate, displayed within the precinct of a polling booth during the election campaign.

Time expired.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Have discussions commenced within the government or with the Electoral Commissioner about when this bill may come into effect? It was a surprise to the opposition that the Attorney was unable to give any advice to the parliament about when this bill may come into effect. Very basically speaking, will it take effect for the purposes of the coming election campaign if it is passed by the parliament?

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Yes.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The Deputy Premier says yes, so when will it come into effect? Will it be immediately—firstly, when we have a Governor and, secondly, when the Governor provides assent to the bill—or is it envisaged that it will occur sometime perhaps late in this year or early next year? I am absolutely flabbergasted that this bill seems to be so important to the government but that no thought appears to have been given to when this bill may come into effect.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I just remind the member that I have had meetings with Mr Reggie Martin—who, in case he has forgotten, is your secretary of the Australian Labor Party—to discuss a number of electoral reforms. We discussed the provision of the draft regulations in relation to this bill as well.

Ms Franks was also interested on behalf of the Greens because they were interested in looking at a different number of corflutes that might be able to be displayed per candidate on polling day or in the polling period that is allowed for display. I think draft regulations were sent to the Labor Party on 8 September. If Mr Martin has not shared that with you, I am sorry; I cannot do any more than that.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am grateful for the Deputy Premier's apology. She would be comforted to know that I do know who Reggie Martin is, and I am aware of his preselection for the Legislative Council. So intent are we on campaigning effectively to get him elected, we have ensured that we have preselected him on a pretty winnable position on the Labor Party ticket for the Legislative Council.

That is unlike, for example, the approach of the Liberal Party at the last election only preselecting the Hon. Jing Lee MLC on a fairly lowly position on the election ticket and presumably having a change of mind after she campaigned so effectively, via the use of corflutes, to get herself elected against the will of the Liberal Party. Then, of course, there was the awful situation, the unpleasantness in the other place, where the Liberal Party split and some people supported her candidacy for presidency. The President did not.

I do not want to digress any further because I know how delicate the Deputy Premier's constitution is when it comes to being offended in this place —

The CHAIR: And also time is of the essence.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Time is of the essence, sir.

The CHAIR: I am simply reminding you.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you. Is it envisaged by the Deputy Premier that the bill will come into effect before 1 January?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I would expect so. Incidentally, the draft regulations that were provided were actually forwarded to the Hon. Kyam Maher, not directly to Mr Martin, but I know I had discussions with him. I think we have also prepared a draft, which may have been promulgated already, in relation to another pending bill on electronic and miscellaneous matters, which has also been canvassed.

As I have indicated, although we do not want to presume what parliament will do, in relation to electoral matters it has been historical that we do provide information and discuss where that will go once there is some determination by the parliament. In the event that this is successful, as soon as practicable we will move for it.

As we are coming up to an amendment, which has been tabled by the Independent member here for a 200 cap, I have also canvassed that with the Electoral Commissioner, who would find that very difficult and onerous to undertake, for his officers during election campaigns to be rigorously running around every electorate—for example in the electorate of Lee, trying to check whether you have 199 or 210 photographs of yourself. He was really concerned about that aspect, that if we had some kind of cap it would make it very difficult for his officers during an election campaign.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

Mr PICTON: From my understanding, there have been 1,285 days since the last election. Why are we only debating this legislation on the eve of the next election, and you have not seen fit to promote this earlier in the parliamentary term, if you so significantly believe that it is important to do so?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It seems to have missed the attention of the member that this was part of a significantly greater bill that was introduced and dealt with last year and ultimately voted down in the upper house I think in March or April this year.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Point of order: it is disorderly to reflect on a vote of the house.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: I am not reflecting on a vote of the house at all. I am simply noting—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: You just reflected on it. In fact, it was a perfect reflection because you correctly said exactly what it was.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I was confirming that this issue was canvassed in another bill a year ago.

The CHAIR: Let's leave it at that. Member for Lee, you have the call, but you are also interrupting your own time with points of order. There are four minutes to go.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I can enlighten the member for Kaurna on why this is only now coming up: because there was important business to be dealt with beforehand. We had the reform of gift cards. That consumed nearly two weeks of sitting. Then, of course, something close to the Deputy Premier's heart was the restoration of Queen's Counsel as a postnominal for those—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: You voted for it.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I thought I opposed it, didn't I? I remember asking the Deputy Premier whether, after QCs, we were going to proceed to knighthoods in South Australia, such is her appetite for anachronisms. But I did actually rise to ask something different, and that was with regard to clause 3 and the amendment provisions. I am interested that the Deputy Premier was countenancing an amendment of up to 200 corflutes per candidate.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: But you were countenancing it. You took it and thought, 'This is worth investigating. I'll take it over to the Electoral Commissioner and see what they think,' not, 'What's that? You would like 200 corflutes? I'm sorry, I'm not interested. I'm against corflutes altogether.' You are up for it. It is extraordinary. I have to say that, when it comes to these sorts of amendments, despite the rhetoric that we get from the Deputy Premier, it is pretty clear that there is business to be done here when it comes to amendments. So when it comes to an Independent—2,000 corflutes. That might be okay. What other proposals were put to you that you then took to the Electoral Commissioner on behalf of Independent and crossbench MPs?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: To my knowledge, on this bill the only amendment was the amendment tabled by the member for Florey to have a cap on corflutes. So in the course of the regular meetings I have with the Electoral Commissioner, including to have funding for the management plans, the COVID preparations, all the things he has to do for all his electoral work, which, of course, in this next 12 months will include a state and a federal election and a number of other elections that he is responsible for—yes, I did.

Whether I raised it or he asked me, I cannot remember which way it was, but there was the indication that there had been a proposal for the 200 cap. He indicated to me in the course of one of the last meetings I had with him, 'Please don't consider supporting that,’ I think words to that effect, ‘because that would be a nightmare for my staff, during an election campaign, to have to go out and actually monitor the numbers of corflutes’. Whether or not it was picked up from an article in the paper, I cannot recall specifically, but I remember it being asked and I remember indicating to him that I would make sure that his views were expressed to the parliament, if it was pursued by the member for Florey, and I have done so.

Clause passed.

Mr PICTON: Chair, I draw your attention to the state of the committee.

A quorum having been formed:

Clause 4.

Ms BEDFORD: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bedford–1]—

Page 2, lines 14 to 17 [clause 4(1), inserted subsection (2a)]—Delete inserted subsection (2a) and substitute:

(2a) A person must not, within any electoral district relating to a House of Assembly election, exhibit more than 200 electoral advertising posters on public roads (including structures or fixtures on public roads).

Maximum penalty: $5,000.

(2b) For the purposes of this section, an electoral advertisement will—

(a) if it relates to a particular registered political party, or to a candidate endorsed by a particular registered political party—be taken to be exhibited by the registered officer of the party; and

(b) if it relates to a candidate who is not a member of a registered political party—be taken to be exhibited by the candidate.

In the face of what is obvious huge adversary to what we are trying to do here today, my thought in moving this motion is that the ability of Independents—although it is not a problem for me but for any following me—or any candidates to raise their profile is going to be severely hampered by not having corflutes.

No matter how much you hate them, they obviously have some impact on people. For many people, it is the only indication that there is actually an election happening. In moving a number, I thought it was better to have a few more than the scant amount being proposed here, so I leave it at that.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I thank the member for Florey for her explanation. I indicate that the government will oppose this amendment as it is simply not practical or workable. To explain that, I refer to a response from the Electoral Commissioner in which he raised the fact that the enforcement of such a cap on numbers of corflutes across the entire electoral district would be very difficult and extremely resource intensive.

In fact, he wrote to me on 20 October 2020 when this was canvassed in the previous bill, which as we now know has lapsed and we are reintroducing it in this bill.

Ms Bedford interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, I understand that, but he said, and I quote:

The issue of 'Corflute' signs has previously been debated in the Parliament at various stages in the past. During such debates, discussions had proposed various solutions including placing limits on the maximum number of signs able to be displayed by any candidate within a district.

I would bring to your attention my desire that such options are fiercely opposed as they will give rise to significant challenges in the administration of the election. The Commission is not resourced to police limits on signs and should not have its resources diverted away from the proper administration and conduct of the election.

That is the contribution provided by the Electoral Commissioner. I was saying a little earlier on another clause that, in a conversation I had with the Electoral Commissioner in a more recent meeting, he reconfirmed that that would be a practical impost on his staff that would make that extremely difficult during an election campaign and therefore requested that I oppose such a move.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have a question for the Attorney-General. Attorney-General—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is not my amendment.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I know, but you have read out an answer. I am entitled to ask her a question, am I not, sir?

The CHAIR: I am happy to take it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Given the Attorney-General has written to the independent statutory officer, who is the Electoral Commissioner, about an amendment by a private member and received advice—

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

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You said you contacted him and he wrote to you—that is advice.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: You are not listening.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The way I read it is that you received an amendment from an Independent member. You took that to the Electoral Commissioner for advice. He responded to you with advice saying that it would be impractical for the Electoral Commissioner to implement this amendment.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: Let's hear the question.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You have gone to a lot of effort to get advice about a private member's amendment from an independent statutory officer. Why have you not done the same for the ICAC bill being discussed in the upper house?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think the member misunderstood the statement I just read out. I reiterate that the Electoral Commissioner is consulted on all electoral bills, so when this bill and the one prior to it were prepared a copy of it went to the Electoral Commissioner. Last year, we gave last year's copy, which had a number of issues in it.

He responded by including this provision—not specifically the member for Florey's motion because it was not before the house at that point—and I repeat the reference. I have the letter. He said, 'I would bring to your attention my desire that such options,' which he had set out during such debates in previous iterations of this bill.

So this is not something I have written to him saying, 'Please give me an idea about what you think about restrictions on the number of corflutes.' Our bill included an abolition of corflutes provision and he wrote back with that information. In the course of a subsequent conversation I had with him, he reconfirmed that any limitation on that would be impractical for his officers.

The CHAIR: Attorney, I am going to confirm that you were quoting from that?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy for you to have the letter.

The CHAIR: I might ask that you table it, please, given that you quoted from it.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy to do that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order, sir: the Attorney has just separated the document.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is a cover sheet.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The whole thing.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: 'See attached'.

The CHAIR: I am sure the Attorney will table it. It is now tabled.

Ms BEDFORD: Following on from what the Attorney said, my problem with all of this—

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: Time has expired.

Ms BEDFORD: What is wrong now?

The CHAIR: The time has expired, member for Florey, but the upside of that is that we get to vote on your amendment.

Ayes 20

Noes 25

Majority 5

Amendment thus negatived.

Mr PICTON: Clause 4 as it stands outlaws plastic, corflute or any other materials defined by regulations, and I understand the Attorney is considering a regulation that would say metal, glass, wood, cardboard or paper. My question to the Attorney is: what happens in the instance where somebody uses a type of material other than what you have prescribed in either the law or the regulation? A few come to mind that have not been included in either one.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy to receive any indication from the member as to any other product or material that might be able to be utilised in this way—it may be cloth or something of another nature. I am happy to receive anything else. These are in draft form. I have not had anything from Mr Maher yet but, if the member has further additions, they can always be added by regulation.

Mr PICTON: I think that there would be questions if it were in the caretaker period in terms of how that would work.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

Mr PICTON: Well, that would be when people would be using them before the election, if suddenly people started using materials other than that in the election—but since you did not really answer that one, I will move on to my second question. This says that you cannot have posters on public roads. Does that mean if I have a street corner meeting on a public road it is illegal for me to have an A-frame with a poster on it?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, that would be a matter that we could consider in regulations, but on the face of it: correct. There would be no advertising material on public roads. Obviously, the member could have a display on any private property and that would be open for him or her to do that.

Mr PICTON: You have spoken about how you have consulted the Electoral Commissioner in relation to the amendment that was moved by the member for Florey and that the Electoral Commissioner gave you advice that that would be difficult to implement because of the impact upon the regulatory function of the Electoral Commissioner and having to drive around to check for signs.

Have you received similar advice about your actual legislation? Surely the Electoral Commissioner now is going to have to be a cop on the beat—every poster, every street corner meeting, every sign, considering whether it is on a public road, whether it meets this definition, is it plastic, is it cardboard, is it some other type of textile, etc. This is going to be a huge regulatory function for the Electoral Commissioner to implement this legislation. Have you received advice from the Electoral Commissioner, and is there going to be additional funding for the commissioner to undertake that work?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: He has not raised any concern with me on the matter.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: What resources will be made available to the Electoral Commissioner to allow him to communicate the changes that are contained in this bill, in the event that it passes, to candidates who have already lodged their candidacy for the next state election?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There are proposed modifications in this bill and another two bills that are before the parliament. In anticipation of any movement in relation to these bills, including things such as telephone-assisted voting, all those matters have been prepared in a costing arrangement that has been put. As you will have seen in the state budget, there is significant provision for those as contingency funding available.

Recently, the commissioner has put to me an extra proposal for funding relating to a circumstance where there may need to be a COVID management plan that might include a delayed election in the event that there was a federal election in the month of March. So there is some extra funding that has been proposed and that is going through the normal process, but there has also been funding as the commissioner has requested in the budget that was announced earlier this year.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: How much has been sought from the commissioner specifically for communicating legislative changes about the conduct of elections?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not have that information as to the breakdown exactly. He has given me his proposal in relation to a number of aspects, including communications, but whether that is just in relation to this or for the whole month, for example, in proposing his usual campaign which he has indicated from 22 January to encourage people to enrol to vote, that is all within the same umbrella.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

Mr PICTON: New subections (1c) and (1d) introduce new offences against candidates if they have posters that are put up, not by them but by anybody promoting their causes. So my question to the Attorney-General is: why has she decided to propose that the candidate themselves would be guilty of an offence when it is not actually the candidate who might have been responsible for the erection of such a sign? In fact, it might not even be somebody on their campaign or they might not have any knowledge of such a fact.

You are now seeking to impose an offence against that candidate which could be any one of us for any sign being established with or without the knowledge of that particular candidate.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Largely, firstly you will see, notwithstanding the concern you had raised, that this would somehow or other be providing responsibility for a candidate for something they have no control over. The provision here under (1d), as you will see, very specifically requires 'if an electoral advertising poster is exhibited by or on behalf of a group in contravention of subsection (1a) or (1b)', and previously of (1c), or on behalf of a candidate in contravention. So we are dealing with both, but it must be within the envelope of 'by or on behalf of' and that is part of the—

Mr Picton: But anybody could do that.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, I am just suggesting to the member that it is not a question of simply saying that, just because somebody comes along and puts up a poster that says, 'I love Chris Picton. He's a great bloke to vote for,' or, 'Chris Picton is an idiot. Don't anyone vote for him,' in some way this is something that you are responsible for. I would suggest not because I think the clause is very clear. Part of the proof of the contravention would have to be that it has been done by the candidate or on behalf of the candidate, so either authorised by them to do that.

Mr PICTON: So there would have to be some sort of investigation as to whether a particular volunteer or other person did it on the candidate's behalf, and that would have to be the test that you are saying?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Proof that it was by the candidate or on behalf of the candidate. That is an evidentiary matter, and so absolutely. Usually what happens in any contravention in relation to corflutes—whether they are too big, if they are on a public place, they are obscuring traffic, all the other things that currently apply to corflutes—is somebody, frequently from the opposing side or other candidate, reports it and complains about it.

Sometimes they go to the local council and the council says, 'This is a matter for the Electoral Commission,' etc. That is a matter of enforcement that would require a level of threshold evidence to be able to prove the case. It is the same as any other compliance matter.

Mr PICTON: If we all woke up one morning and we found throughout the streets of Bragg a huge series of posters that had been erected overnight supporting Vickie Chapman's, 'Liberal for Bragg,’ and there was not any evidence that somebody had established them on your behalf as the candidate, then you are saying that there would be no way there would be any prosecution or action taken under such an offence and effectively they could continue?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not necessarily. There may be a prosecution in relation to a group, on behalf of a group. If it has 'Written and authorised by Sascha Meldrum of the Liberal Party of Australia, SA division' written on the bottom of it, it may be that new subsection (1d) would apply; nevertheless, there has to be a threshold obligation there.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I take the wording of amendment No. 5, a prohibition on anyone putting greater than four corflutes within 50 metres. Does that apply to the Electoral Commission itself?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Is the member suggesting the address of the Electoral Commission here in the city as being the place that is a polling booth?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No. For example, for those of us who have polling booths in our electorates which are schools, where the entrance to the booth may not be in direct sight of the road, where directions might need to be given, within 50 metres of the entrance to that polling booth is the commission itself also restricted to only placing four corflutes within 50 metres of the entrance to that polling booth?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The Electoral Commissioner material—

The CHAIR: There is a point of order.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: It is not a point of order.

The CHAIR: You are pointing out. You actually have raised a point of order, and that is that time has expired, but I am going to suggest that the Attorney answer this question and keep it to 30 seconds.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Absolutely. Information about the booth and where the entrance point is and all the things that normally are the Electoral Commission are not advertising material under the definition.

Clause passed.

Schedule 1.

Mr PICTON: As we have discussed in relation to other legislation, we are likely to have a federal election and a state election simultaneously occurring. Is there any prohibition upon federal candidates putting up posters? If so, would we not have a scenario if we have election periods that are close or overlapping where we end up with corflutes which say, 'Vote Labor,' 'Vote Liberal,' 'Vote Independent,' 'Vote Greens,' or whatever party, and which are said to be for the federal election but have a dual use for the state election as well? If that is the case, how could that possibly be policed; that is, what is going to be a federal sign and what is a state sign?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Firstly, can I say there are no size restrictions in relation to federal elections. I have already said during this debate that I have had about 20 years of looking at life-size and half-size posters of Christopher Pyne walking towards me in the seat of Sturt, which has overlapped my area. I am glad that era is over.

Nevertheless, from the point of view of differences, there are differences between the commonwealth and the state electoral laws. In fact, our own funding laws are very different thanks to the Australian Labor Party here in South Australia wanting to have its own bespoke-type system and the resistance to have anything to do with having something similar to the federal system. So this does happen. We raised with the Hon. John Rau at the time how impractical that was going to be for implementation, the lack of consistency in relation to—

Mr Picton interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, I am talking about funding. There are differences in our rules in relation to those matters. We have faced circumstances before where there is close proximity of a federal election and a local government election to us, and in the next 12 months we are expecting all three. So I suspect there will be a bit of election fatigue amongst South Australians by the time we get to the end of next year.

That is a circumstance we do face from time to time, and the Electoral Commissioner is already looking at this question of how he manages the advertising message and the rules that apply to each of the election campaigns—state, federal and local government—assuming for the moment they are in that order. They may not be, but I am expecting at the very least that it is either that or it will be federal, state and then local government. He will continue to manage this as expertly as he has in the past.

Mr PICTON: Through that haze of an answer I think we got confirmation that there is no prohibition upon federal corflutes—so corflutes will be continuing—and that there will be the ability for parties, Independents or others who have both federal and state candidates to have signs that may well cross over both.

Mr Brown: How convenient.

Mr PICTON: That is very convenient, as the member for Playford says. I also think that this is going to be another significant task the Attorney is adding to the Electoral Commissioner's job because they are going to have to interpret whether or not something is a state or a federal poster and interpret its use. In the remaining time, I ask the Attorney: if somebody is doing a protest on a public street and they want to have a sign, is that prohibited under this legislation?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that that depends entirely in relation to what it says and also the display of those, and whether they contravene the proposed definition. That is a matter to be determined and can be added to if there is some proposal you want to put to us in relation to the draft regulations. Mr Maher already has a copy of them but, if there is anything else the member for Kaurna would like to put, I am happy to receive them.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Those are two clouds of uncertainty that have been cast over this. One is that a corflute from the Electoral Commission advising the fact that there is an election on and that this is the place to go to have a vote apparently is held somehow differently in this bill as opposed to political candidates, and now we do not have any certainty whether people can carry placards during protests on local roads. How badly drafted has this bill been?

The CHAIR: Time has expired.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy to answer, sir, if you wish.

The CHAIR: No, I think we will take that as a comment rather than a question.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

Schedule passed.

Title.

The CHAIR: The final question before the Chair is that the title of the bill be an act to amend the Electoral Act 1985 and to make a related amendment to the Local Government Act 1999. Are there any questions on the title?

Mr PICTON: Following up on what we have just heard, which I think is absolutely extraordinary, that the Attorney cannot even commit to this house that her legislation is not going to outlaw somebody going to a peaceful, public protest, which should be allowed in a free democratic society, to be able to make whatever sign they want, whatever funny, witty thing they want to put on a sign. This may be outlawed. We asked the very simple question, 'Is this going to be allowed?' and the Attorney's response is, 'It depends.'

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: On what she puts in regulations.

Mr PICTON: On what she puts in regulations, and then she blames us for not doing her work drafting her regulations. It is just extraordinary the overreach in terms of people's democratic rights that you are seeking to infringe by this amendment. What actual thinking has gone into this legislation that could get us to this point where we have a couple of minutes left in this debate and now it emerges that you may well be outlawing people having placards at peaceful protests that should be allowed to happen in a free democratic society.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In short, the Electoral Commissioner is aware of the bill. The Electoral Commissioner has not raised a concern about this. The Electoral Commissioner has not raised any concern about the definition of 'electoral matter'.

Mr Picton interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, this may assist. The definition which is in the bill means 'matter calculated to affect the result of an election'. Those are matters that have been viewed by the commissioner. He has not raised any objection to this or suggested some incapacity—

An honourable member: You're supposed to preserve free speech. What are you doing?

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —to be able to raise the concern about that. So that is a matter which we have accepted, that he has accepted.

Mr PICTON: Everyone has agreed to ban protest signs, have they? Everyone is happy with that?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Remember that this is electoral advertising which is around the provisions that we are setting for polling day—no—I just invite the member to have a look at the definitions. I will not take up all of his time.

Mr PICTON: Thank you. I have read the definition of 'electoral advertisement' and, from memory, as I do not have it in front of me, it is clearly things that are done to influence the outcome of an election. Most protests, you could argue, would fit that definition. If you have a protest against the government and their $662 million basketball stadium, you could argue that that fits that definition.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

Mr PICTON: That's right. If you have a protest against this government's work to data harvest from South Australians, and the fact that they have been reported from the Ombudsman to the OPI for potential corruption, well that would meet that definition of electoral advertising.

The way that this bill has been drafted says that you cannot have such a sign on a public road and, of course, most protests happen on public roads. So there is no protection that has been put in here for protests whatsoever and we are likely to see a situation in which this bill has been legislated in such a way that would ban people having the vast majority of signs that would be used in a protest.

The Attorney's only defence to that is to say, 'Well, I asked the Electoral Commissioner and he was okay.' There is no definition as to whether protest signs will be able to happen or not. Are we now sleepwalking to where we are banning people using their democratic right, as they want to do, to have signs at a protest in a free and democratic society?

The CHAIR: That is a comment rather than a question.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (18:20): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (18:20): This is a disappointing day for South Australians. Not only has this bill been brought before the house by the government with the express intention of making it harder for Independents and minor party candidates to be elected to parliament, but it has been done in a way to curtail the capacity of MPs to adequately voice their concerns about this bill.

It is obvious to anyone what is going on here. This government, after 16 years of manifest incompetence, finally fell over the line and was able to form government at the 2018 state election. If you want an understanding of why the Liberal Party was unsuccessful for 16 years, that is the precise term for which the member for Bragg had been elected to the parliament, between 2002 and 2018, including in senior leadership positions. Of course, no-one could forget her late contribution to the 2010 election campaign, which derailed former member for Heysen Isobel Redmond's tilt at becoming Premier then.

We finally have a Liberal Party that has been able to form government here in South Australia, and what do they set about doing? They set about making it more difficult for Independent South Australians and minor party candidates to seek election to parliament.

We are all used to the two-party political system here in Australia, but our parliaments were not established like that at all. They were established well before the formation of the Australian Labor Party, and certainly well before the current iteration of the Liberal Party, to seek election as members of the community representing their local areas who may or may not join together in the parliament to reach a common view on particular things.

Regardless of the fact that we have a two-party system dominating here in South Australia, as we do elsewhere in the country, Independents and minor party MPs play an incredibly important role in our parliamentary process. For the best part of the last 30 years we have not had either of the major parties, Labor or Liberal, command a majority in the Legislative Council, which has meant that the party that formed government down here was not able to ram legislation through both houses of the parliament. There had to be consultation and there had to be compromise.

At the first taste of power, what does this Liberal government do: it seeks to snuff out the chances of Independents getting elected—and not just to this place but to the other place as well. In one of the points I made earlier on a clause, I made reference to the fact that the Liberal Party obviously did not prioritise the candidacy of the Hon. Jing Lee too much because they put her fourth on the Legislative Council ticket.

That was despite her doing more work than all the other Liberal members put together to engage with multicultural communities, let alone probably more work to fundraise for members of the Liberal Party as well. They did not think she was a priority, and they put her at number 4 on the ticket. How did she get herself elected? She campaigned on her own behalf. She was nearly the only Legislative Council candidate who put up corflutes.

She put them all over Chinatown, around Gouger Street, in the middle of Adelaide and around key communities around metropolitan Adelaide where she thought she could attract votes. And now what do we get from the Liberal government? Those sorts of candidates, even major party candidates, should not have the capacity to better their chances of getting elected to the Parliament of South Australia. It is just outrageous.

As the member for Kaurna said, even the Greens, the political party that holds themselves up to be the most environmentally conscious, do not want plastic-fluted posters—or corflutes, as we know them—banned here in South Australia. The Hon. Mark Parnell did not want them banned because he knew how important it was that members like himself, members of minor parties like the Greens, are given the best possible opportunity to get elected to parliament. Whether the current iteration of the Greens thinks that this bill is a good idea or not, I take the word of Mark Parnell over many when it comes to considering these sorts of issues.

This government is not only unable to govern in its own right, because it is so mired in scandal and ministerial resignation, but it seems to have become so addicted and drunk on power that it wants to minimise the chances of other people getting elected to office. That is an outrage and that is why we do not support this bill.

Bill read a third time and passed.

At 18:27 the house adjourned until Thursday 23 September 2021 at 11:00.