Electoral (Funding, Expenditure and Disclosure) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 9 June 2021.)

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (12:29): I indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition in relation to the Electoral (Funding, Expenditure and Disclosure) Amendment Bill 2021. I say at the outset how important I believe it is for the integrity of our democracy to have strong laws in terms of how elections are funded, how we determine and disclose those funding arrangements, making sure that the people of South Australia have confidence that there are limits in terms of the role that money plays in our politics.

I think it is very clear that there have been countless examples from all around the world of the toxic role money can play in politics and that in elections there should be a fair contest of ideas, where the bank balance, donations and those sorts of interests should be limited as much as possible.

During the last term of parliament, we put in place a legislative regime and this was introduced by the former Attorney-General, the Hon. John Rau. I think that was a dramatic step forward in terms of our funding, disclosure and expenditure regime that we have for our elections. Do I think it could go further? I think perhaps in the future we could go even further to make sure that we have an even more robust system and to make sure that we limit the role money has in our elections and our politics as much as possible.

These changes took us a very long way from where we were before. I think they were successful in the last election, and there is obviously now an amendment being put forward by the Attorney-General to change that in relation to the forthcoming election. What we had was a system that was subject to a range of amendments in 2016, before the system had gone through an election. This showed the value of introducing and considering electoral legislation well in advance of an election. This is a lesson the Liberals could well learn. The new system was always intended to be reviewed and reformed where it could be improved.

In 2019, two years ago, the Electoral Commission handed down the report into the operation and administration of South Australia's funding, expenditure and disclosure legislation. Then, after that, there was silence and then more silence. Then, on 1 July this year, the capped expenditure period for the 2022 state election commenced, and this is a fundamental element of the entire funding and disclosure system.

As far as this system is concerned, we are already in it for the next election. This has already been running for some months now, yet the Attorney-General only introduced this legislation into the parliament a mere 21 days before that period commenced with no prospect or intention to have it passed before the critical first date of 1 July. In fact, if you look at the government's order of priorities they put forward to the house in government business time, this has been well down the list for many weeks.

Unfortunately, this is part of a pattern of behaviour from the Attorney-General. In almost four years since the 2018 election, there have been four electoral bills introduced by the government. None of them was introduced in 2018 and none in 2019. One was introduced in late 2020, but did not get dealt with until 2021—this year, the last year before the election—in the Legislative Council. Of course, that first bill was voted down in the other place largely on the basis of the lateness of it.

Now suddenly, in the October before an election, the government have three different proposals they have been trying to get through the parliament. One, I understand, has fallen down in the other place and has been rejected; one, I believe, is still on foot; and here we have the third.

As we saw with the other bills, there were concerns raised about making changes to elections so late in the cycle. Labor have raised concerns about this in relation to all these bills. Electoral laws should not be a plaything for the government of the day. They are a foundation of our community's confidence in our democracy. This is making changes to the finance and disclosure scheme in the middle of a capped expenditure period.

When the scheme was originally passed through the parliament in 2013, the Labor government agreed that the scheme would not commence until 2015. The delay was designed to give everyone a chance to get up to speed with the changes and to make sure compliance was as easy as possible. This meant that the 2014 election would not be impacted by the changes that were passed in 2013. The first relevant election would be in 2018.

When the law was amended in 2016, the 2018 election was well over a year away. There was plenty of time for those who were impacted to understand and prepare for the new system before they entered the capped expenditure period. The Attorney mentioned in her second reading speech that the changes largely stem from the Electoral Commission's report into the operation and administration of South Australia's funding expenditure and disclosure legislation.

The problem for the Attorney is that that report was published more than two years ago. The government has had more than two years to act on this report before we entered the capped expenditure period before the 2022 election. In fact, the report itself was published in July 2022, two years before that period started, and the Attorney tabled it in September 2019, more than two years before today's date, yet we heard nothing from the Attorney about this until 9 June this year.

The Attorney is trying to change the legislation a mere 21 days before the funding period began. If that is not bad enough, the opposition did not receive their briefing from the government on the bill until the day before the capped expenditure period started. Unfortunately, this is reflective of how all the electoral bills have been handled by the Attorney since coming to government.

Quite reasonably, the other place have been saying no in relation to laws that have been proposed by the Attorney-General because things have been so late in that period. She clearly has not been getting the hint, and we have now had bill after bill trying to achieve changes to the electoral laws in this state well into the year before the election—now only a few months before the election. This contrasts very significantly with the view that the Attorney-General had when she was in opposition. Of course, she spent 16 years in opposition.

In 2016, in relation to an electoral bill she in fact went on the record to complain about how late it was that those changes were being dealt with before the 2018 election. In 2016, she was complaining that there was not enough time before the 2018 election. She said:

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 only about half of what the then electoral commissioner, Ms Kay Mousley, recommended in her report to the parliament in July 2015. Ms Mousley recommended some 30 reforms to the 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 to table a bill, especially as it incorporates only half the recommendations of the electoral commissioner.

So, in opposition, the Attorney-General, now the member for Bragg, was critical of the then Attorney-General, the Hon. John Rau, only tabling bills almost two years before the election. Here, we have a very different stance. In this particular bill, we are really into the eleventh hour.

In relation to the scheme we have in place, it has been noted that it provides an annual disclosure period, when parties and associated entities have to comply. As of 1 January in an election year, parties, associated entities, candidates and groups are required to furnish a return at the end of January and then on a weekly basis thereafter. The bill requires immediate disclosure of large gifts received by political parties, which I believe is very important progress in relation to our laws, to make sure that people know and there is disclosure in relation to how money is used in terms of politics. If a party receives a gift that exceeds the value of $25,000, the party will have seven days to furnish a return to the Electoral Commissioner that includes information such as the name and address of the donor and other prescribed details.

There is also under the law that was introduced a funding cap that restricts the total amount that can be expended by a political party. Those caps are indexed according to CPI. Since the legislation was first introduced, the cap will obviously have increased with CPI. There is a cap if a party runs for all 47 seats, there is a cap of $3.525 million or 75,000 per district, and then 100,000 per Legislative Council candidate in addition. Very specific caps have been put in place under the laws that were introduced by the previous government and supported by the then opposition Liberal Party that have made the caps on expenditure very clear in our legislation.

In terms of the funding elements, reimbursement happens, but you have to make sure that you account for all those expenditures. That is different from the federal regime, where there have been instances of some parties who have spent very little but have received under electoral funding laws significant amounts of funding for the votes they have received in advance of what has actually been spent. I believe that our scheme that was introduced by the previous government is a significant benefit in relation to that.

However, we do want to see the detail and consider the arguments in relation to this legislation. On the face of it, despite the politics and the complete lack of due process and timeliness by the Attorney-General, we do not believe that at this stage this is an attempt by her to change the rules in favour of the Liberal Party, as opposed to some of the other legislation we have been considering. Most of the changes in this bill are fairly technical and they include:

reducing areas of double reporting of donations;

the nuts and bolts mechanics regarding gifts and the state campaign account;

the termination of an appointed agent; and

the way expenditure caps interact with candidates losing endorsement.

I understand that there are still discussions happening with stakeholders, led by shadow attorney-general, the Hon. Kyam Maher in the other place, around certain elements of this bill. The opposition, therefore, will be reserving its position on the bill at this time. We will listen carefully to the government's arguments for this bill and will consider it further when it gets to the other place.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Cowdrey): Are there any other speakers in regard to the bill?

Ms LUETHEN: Mr Acting Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (12:44): I appreciate the contribution made by the opposition—not all of the gratuitous comments, but I think you can go too far in relation to my alleged bona fides or not. I would like to acknowledge the directors of the relevant parties: the Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division), I think they still call them the secretary of the Australian Labor Party, all those others who were invited to make a contribution to this debate from other registered political parties, and the stakeholders generally in the contribution on this matter.

I acknowledge the work and discussions with Mr Reggie Martin who, of course, is State Secretary of the Australian Labor Party, to advance a number of these reforms, largely as a result of the assessment and recommendations of the Electoral Commissioner who had prepared his second comprehensive report in relation to matters arising out of the 2018 election. We would have liked here in the parliament to have had some of this information a bit earlier, but it was a lot of work, I understand, for the Electoral Commissioner and so the delay in the publication of his report in relation to funding and disclosure reforms is simply a matter that we have to live with and, as a parliament, we have embraced that with this government bill to progress.

As I understand it, there is no request by members to go into committee on this matter in this house, although there may be some matters traversed in the other place. I would like to place on record again my appreciation to Michelle Coram, who has been made available to discuss matters with other stakeholders and has been diligent in her extensive service in relation to electoral reform and her availability here in the parliament. It seems today she is now not going to be needed but she has been here ever present and ready to provide that advice.

I remind members in relation to these matters that the government is always available to schedule convenient times for the discussion on any matters that are raised, and if there are particular issues for the opposition or crossbenchers—although I have not heard from the latter—then we are happy to discuss those further between the houses.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I move:

Amendment No 1 [AG–1]—

Page 3, after line 23—Insert:

(5a) Section 130A(1), definition of third party, (g)—after '$10,000' insert:

(indexed)

I indicate that this amendment inserts after ‘$10,000’ the word '(indexed)'. This is an amendment to ensure that both references to the amount of $10,000 and the definition of third party will be indexed. The bill already amends the first reference to $10,000 in this amendment and will amend the second reference. It is really for completeness in relation to the drafting on that. This amendment generally, of course, is to fully implement recommendation 34 of the Election Funding Report.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 5 to 22 passed.

Clause 23.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I move:

Amendment No 1 [AG–2]—

Page 11, line 27 [clause 23(1)]—Delete ‘130U(1)(c)(ii)’ and substitute ‘130U(1)(b)(ii)’

I indicate that this is a technical amendment to the drafting to correct a cross-reference to an earlier subsection reference in the bill. Clause 23 is a consequential amendment following the substitution of section 130U in clause 11 of the bill.

Mr PICTON: I am just wondering whether the Attorney could outline the cause and effect of this change, and what the differences are between section 130U(1)(c)(ii) and section 130U(1)(b)(ii)?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Let me start by advising that clause 23 provides that parties with six or more members of the Parliament of South Australia that submit a claim for special assistance funding under section 130U will also need to submit an audit certificate under section 130ZV.

The kinds of political expenditure that can be claimed by these parties will be prescribed by regulation and will relate to the costs of complying with part 13A of the act. These prescribed costs may include legal fees, audit fees, accounting and banking services, computing software and the cost of administrative staff performing duties relating to compliance. Parties with none or one to six members of parliament will receive an amount to be prescribed by regulations and will not be required to submit an audit certificate. In general terms, as I understand it, this is for the very minor parties where there is a lower threshold of requirement.

Mr PICTON: Was the change from section 130U(1)(c)(ii) to section 130U(1)(b)(ii) a drafting error, or is there a change in effect that is being sought here?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is a drafting matter, as I indicated. This is a technical amendment to the drafting to correct a cross-reference to an earlier subsection reference in the bill.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (24 to 27) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (12:54): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

Ms COOK: Sir, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed: