Electoral (Accountability and Integrity) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 1.

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I refer to my previous answers to a question put in very similar terms. The question arises in relation to clause 1, which is the short title. I observe that it is perhaps not the best place to ask about the merits of subsequent clauses, and it may be that the member for Heysen takes us to the calibration of various additional clauses. Otherwise, I refer to my earlier answer.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 6 passed.

Clause 7.

Mr TEAGUE: We have a provision that is broadly welcomed. I think I might have referred to it in terms of the Law Society's contribution, for example, that provides for audits by the Electoral Commissioner, the subject of new section 43C. The Law Society, by its letter to the Attorney-General dated 11 July 2024, indicated broad endorsement but by reference more particularly to what was then new 130ZVA, which would give the Electoral Commissioner power to audit the activities and documents of an entity to whom funding is available under part 13 of the act. That has been met with broad approval.

In terms of the audit function generally of the Electoral Commissioner, the government might take this opportunity just to indicate to the committee how the commissioner has been engaged and how those audit functions can be carried out, whether there is additional funding required and the burden that might place on the commissioner and indeed on those participants to the extent that is novel.

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I thank the member for his question. I certainly have consulted with the Electoral Commissioner. I have taken the benefit of the Electoral Commissioner's advice, and any additional funding will be provided as may be necessary through the budget process.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The audits by the Electoral Commissioner, are they restricted only to political parties, or can third parties who participate in the election process also be subject to audits by the Electoral Commissioner?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I think I can assist the member for Unley by clarifying that this particular provision goes to members who form a corpus allowing a party to be registered, and the inquiries that the Electoral Commissioner might make about the bona fides of those particular members.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: So is that a yes or a no? I did not pick that up in your answer. Is it only political parties it can audit or can it audit third parties?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: To assist the member for Unley, there are certainly additional audit powers and we might come to them later, but this particular provision relates to audits around political parties.

Clause passed.

Clause 8 passed.

Clause 9.

Mr TEAGUE: At clause 9 we see some definitions, and those include at subsection (3), on page 9 of the bill, reference to the definition of 'associated entity' and now an express exclusion of a registered industrial organisation or entity wholly comprised of registered industrial organisations, into which I read 'unions'.

We have to bear in mind that this bundle of provisions that are amending the Electoral Act is partly adapting and piggybacking off what is there, notably part 13A and adjusting the Rau mechanism, but here we are seeing the use of an existing definition in 130A(1). I just refer to that specifically. The existing definition of 'associated entity' in 130A(1) has six specified kinds of entity, and what this provision is doing is specifically excluding a union that becomes registered because it is participating in an electoral campaign, presumably.

I suppose the question is: why did the government find it necessary to exclude from the definition of 'associated entity' a registered union where, on its face, the associated entity definition would appear—to me, anyway—to include at least those affiliated unions? What purpose is the express exclusion serving, and why is it necessary to include here?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: Respectfully, it is a very good question. Donations to associated entities are treated in the same way as donations to a political party, and accordingly it is necessary to exclude industrial organisations. There are still, of course, third-party requirements on those other entities.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: So, as to that exclusion for registered industrial organisations, does it also include registered industrial organisations whose delegates are part of the preselection process for Labor Party preselections?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: As I say, the purpose of the clause is to ensure that donations to associated entities are treated in the same way as donations to a political party. In terms of industrial entities overall, I would point the member in the direction of the third party restrictions that are in place in this bill.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I am sorry, that is not clear. I am trying to establish whether a registered industrial organisation that plays a role in endorsing political candidates is still exempt or not included in section 130A or whether we have a situation in this new bill where those who are actually participating in the choice of candidates for a political party are exempt from this particular clause.

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: As I say, I am advised that the particular clause is directed and ensuring that it is a distinction between associated entities so as to make plain that a donation to an associated entity is treated in the same way as a donation to a political party. The member for Unley invites me to speculate on the internal preselection processes of one of the major parties. It would be difficult for me to do that, just as it might be difficult for me to speculate on the contemporary preselection practices of the Liberal Party or indeed any other party.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Is it the intent of the legislation to capture organisations that have an association with a political party for the purposes of the donation, or is it the intent that the registered industrial organisation that has a role in preselecting candidates is actually not considered to be an associated organisation to the political party they are affiliated with and for which they provide an input to the preselection process?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I am endeavouring to assist the member for Unley. I think I understand the thrust of his question. I think it is still right for me to emphasise that I am advised that third party regulation is a matter that is contemplated by this bill, but the specific purpose of this clause is to make plain that donations to an associated entity must be treated in the same way as a donation to a political party. I am advised that the risk is that if it were drafted differently it may be that other entities, not just the ones that the member for Unley has in mind—there might be unintended consequences.

Mr TEAGUE: For the committee's interest, I just indicate that I will make a comparison to the treatment of the registered industrial organisations at clause 56. The notes under subclause (3) refer to in note 2:

A registered industrial organisation or an entity wholly comprised of registered industrial organisations is a third party under this Part if it—

and now referring to the second dot point over the page—

incurred more than [the requisite] expenditure during the designated period in relation to the last preceding general election.

In clause 56, where we are dealing with the registration of third parties and the requirement to register, a third party who incurs or intends to incur more than the requisite expenditure during the designated period in relation to an election must not do so without being registered. So the registration criteria is forward-looking in clause 56. It does not refer to the need to register based on what you did at the last preceding general election, but the definition of 'associated entity' does appear to encapsulate that, so while it might be apparent as the reasons why, was is it the case that there is not uniformity between clause 9(3) and clause 56? Why is clause 56 not, given that we are starting the process saying, 'If you did that last time, then you are in' in the same way as the definition of 'associated entity', saying 'If you did it last time, you are in'?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: Respectfully, I think the weight of that question is directed at clause 56 rather than clause 9 and I would endeavour to assist the member once we get to clause 56.

Clause passed.

Clauses 10 to 15 passed.

Clause 16.

Mr TEAGUE: Clause 16 deals with nominated entities and the addition of a new division 2A and a register of nominated entities that the Electoral Commissioner now has to establish and maintain. In terms of dealing with the legacy aspect of this, what is the expectation of the government in terms of the identification of those entities? Are they all identified now? Is there a mystery about this? Is there any possibility for there to be some creative endeavour to establish any nominated entity, or is the government satisfied that it is dealing with a known set of circumstances, the nominated entities are all of longstanding? If the minister can name them then all the better for the record.

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I thank the member for his question. As the member will see on the face of the clause, the permission is extended to two nominated entities and if they are nominated, as it were, then of course the benefits of the act apply.

Clause passed.

Clauses 17 and 18 passed.

Clause 19.

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I move:

That clause 19, which is printed in erased type, be inserted in the bill.

Clause inserted.

Clause 20.

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I move:

That clause 20, which is printed in erased type, be inserted in the bill.

Mr TEAGUE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Teague–1]—

Page 35, line 43 [clause 20, inserted section 130PE(2)(a)]—After 'election' insert:

and good reason not to repay part or all of any amount received

This is really in consideration of what has been the main substantive government amendment that has emerged in the course of the debate—and rather dramatically—a fortnight ago. Without referring to debate in another place, the effect of the amended section 130PE(2) will be to provide a means by which the Electoral Commissioner will and will not require the repayment of any amount that is paid in advance to any candidate and then to provide exceptions to that repayment arrangement, particularly in circumstances of an incumbent.

The bill is creating a regime in which there is a threshold of 2 per cent and 4 per cent of the vote for Legislative Council and House of Assembly candidates respectively, below which the candidate is required to repay money that has been paid in advance of the campaign. That has elicited all sorts of excitement, particularly from incumbent members who are not wanting to be facing the prospect of what might be an eligibility for a significant amount of pre-election payment and then not meeting the threshold or not receiving sufficient support at the election the subject of that campaign being liable, then, for the clawback. So that is all there on the record.

One of the positives, I suppose, of that coming to attention only lately was that we have had just that little bit more time to take in the contents of the bill, which is a good thing and a reminder to everybody that it is good not to be too breathless about the process. The amendment the government has added to the bill as a result of all that provides that the Electoral Commissioner will not seek repayment where although an incumbent decides not to contest an election, they have good reason for doing so. That is a sensible change, on one view. That is a means of providing for sympathetic circumstances in which an incumbent receives some electoral funds, participates in a campaign to an extent, spends those electoral funds then does not contest, say for example for reasons of ill health.

My amendment provides, in a way that I think is sensible—and I raised this with the government immediately on seeing this, so it is certainly not taking the government by surprise—that there is a further stipulation that there is good reason why the money should not be repaid anyway. The example of that is if the candidate decides not to recontest and they have also not spent the money that they have been paid, the public funds that they have been advanced for the campaign, then there ought to be, in my view, a capacity for money that is held to be repaid.

That can happen as a matter of practice. One response might be that it is likely that a commissioner would make a request that the funds might not be withheld, but it is good to have the means by which, where moneys have not been spent, the commissioner has the direct capacity to say, 'Those need to come back.' In keeping with the rest of the context of the provision, there is no means by which in those circumstances any moneys being paid back would include reimbursement of funds that have already been committed to a campaign. That is the effect of the amendment, and I commend it to the committee.

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I think I understand the thrust of the matters that the member for Heysen has raised with the house. I think it is useful for members for me to reflect that much of the drafting, including in relation to this matter, has been informed by the expert independent report. We take the weight of that report seriously, and we have endeavoured to form up legislation based on not only the community feedback we have received, the benefit of other advice available to the government, but also, as I indicated at clause 1, the benefit of that independent report.

One of the matters emphasised by the independent report is the need to ensure protections for taxpayers. The 2 per cent and 4 per cent threshold tests were therefore preserved in the legislation. Members of the other place—and I am restricted here, or must tread carefully here, because of the rule against reflecting on debate in the other place—indicated that they had some concerns in relation to those matters. The government, in accordance with the consultative approach that it has taken so far, acted to amend the legislation.

It is against that background that the member for Heysen now seeks to move his amendment. I am advised that there is concern that the amendment might work in unfairness on a member who chose not to continue to run, after making an undertaking that they would exhaust the funding available to them on political expenditure, by reason of illness or infirmity, because it is likely that there would be an inquiry extending beyond—and I think this is where there may be a defect in the member's drafting—to trying to recover and take in those funds, or an amount of those funds, that have already been spent. Of course, the good reason inquiry or test is the one that the member for Heysen points to. In any event, the amendment is opposed.

Mr TEAGUE: I just highlight that, by reference to the expert group, of course, this is something that has emerged and seems to have taken the government by surprise. I think the government's intent was as expressed in what became the introduced version post-draft 83 and the government's intent, the subject of that bill, was to claw back all of these funds from the members who did not get to the threshold. We are all well aware of the threshold. We are well aware of this late change that is not informed at all by the expert group. It is self-evidently looking at the chronology of one to the other.

My understanding is that the minister in this place is responsible for this bill. I have engaged with the government's amendment drafted in the circumstances that it was. I might say it is somewhat galling to hear the government's representative describe some sort of defect in the drafting. As a matter of courtesy, this is a matter that has been raised both in principle and now in practice. If there is a defect in the approach, there is certainly no criticism that I can decipher from the minister's contribution just now, as to the principal.

In response to the criticised defect, the words of the amendment—and I stress, if there is a clumsiness to them, or if there is a better way forward then I just indicate that I have exercised whatever diligence is available to me and I benefit from the assistance of parliamentary counsel and so on, otherwise I take responsibility for it. It applies the same discretion—that is, to a level of satisfaction—in the commissioner to establish a good reason not to repay part or all of the funds.

Having the funds sitting as cash in a bank account is a classic example of that, but the commissioner is there as a responsible public officer, there to scrutinise the circumstances. Obviously, if there are funds that are the subject of undertakings, if there are other reasons why it would not be appropriate to repay them, then that is provided for in that form of amendment.

The general public of South Australia are being asked—the subject of this bill as a whole—in fact, they are not just being asked but being required to step in and provide now some many millions of dollars of funds for parties, members and participants in the political process to administer themselves in between elections. And then, more particularly, at an election the taxpayers of South Australia are now being required to pay money to these people in advance of the election.

I would have thought, just as a matter of ordinary interpretation, that if it happens in those sympathetic circumstances in which the Electoral Commissioner is satisfied that someone is not going to contest, there are plenty of such sympathetic circumstances, then the commissioner is ably placed to serve the interests of the people of South Australia in also inquiring: 'Are there any loose funds that are around that have not been spent? If so, I will deal with that all at once.' There is a deal of flexibility in both aspects of that test.

As I say, if the government finds that defective in terms of its drafting then it certainly had an opportunity to do better. The people of South Australia would be looking on in circumstances where the commissioner forms the view that there are sympathetic circumstances for the candidate not recontesting, and where the commissioner is then going out and saying, 'I am not in a position to do anything more.

I have formed a view that there is a good reason for this candidate not contesting, now I have nothing more to do.' And whatever perhaps very substantial funds have gone undeployed, well, we might have to rely on some sort of convention. We may or may not ask the question. The commissioner might find that, guided by the statute, it is not appropriate to do so.

So I understand the government's position. All of that is on the record and, if the government has a better way of drafting it, and it sees fit to support a form of amendment that achieves that end, then I can indicate my support for that. In the meantime, I commend the amendment to the committee.

The CHAIR: Minister, do you wish to respond?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I thank the member for Heysen for detailing the perceived merits from his perspective of the amendment that he seeks the house's support for. I emphasise that the best advice available to the government is that the amendment might work an unfairness on a member who discontinues by seeking to take in those funds that have already been spent. I understand that that would not be the intention of the member for Heysen, but there it is. That is the advice that we have.

Nevertheless, it is a matter that I am equally advised may be dealt with by regulation, and I think that is the better approach, keeping in mind that there is a certification process and an undertaking that is to be made by members who are otherwise restricted to spending these funds only on political purposes. As I say, there needs to be—if the matter were to be progressed—an appropriate distinction between those funds already spent, and the concern is that the amendment as drafted would seek to gather in those funds and work it on fairness.

Amendment negatived; clause inserted.

New clause 21.

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Special Minister of State]—

Page 40, line 17 to page 43, line 25—Insert new clause 21:

21—Substitution of section 130Q

Section 130Q—delete the section and substitute:

130Q—Payment not to be made or to be reduced in certain circumstances

(1) A payment referred to in section 130P will not be made in respect of votes given in an election for a candidate unless—

(a) the total number of eligible votes cast in favour of the candidate is—

(i) in the case of a candidate in a Legislative Council election—at least 2% of the total primary vote; or

(ii) in the case of a candidate in a House of Assembly election—at least 4% of the total primary vote; or

(b) the candidate is elected.

(2) A payment referred to in section 130P will not be made in respect of votes given in an election for a group unless—

(a) the total number of eligible votes cast in favour of the group is at least 2% of the total primary vote; or

(b) a member of the group is elected.

(3) A payment referred to in section 130P will not be made in respect of votes given in an election for a candidate or group unless—

(a) a certificate was lodged under section 130PF in respect of the candidate or group for the election; or

(b) if paragraph (a) does not apply, within 14 days after polling day for the election (or such longer period as the Electoral Commissioner may allow), the agent of the candidate or group lodges a certificate under this paragraph to receive funding in respect of the election.

(4) A certificate under subsection (3)(b) must—

(a) be accompanied by any information or material required by the Electoral Commissioner; and

(b) be lodged in a manner and form determined by the Electoral Commissioner.

(5) The deductible amount for a House of Assembly election or Legislative Council election must be deducted from the amount of election funding payable in accordance with section 130P(1)(a) or (b) to the agent of a registered political party for the relevant election.

(6) No amount is payable under this Division to the agent of a registered political party in relation to an election if the date of registration of the party under Part 6 is less than 8 months before polling day for the election to which the amount relates.

(7) If the agent of a person to whom Division 6 applies fails to ensure that the person does not incur political expenditure in excess of the person's applicable expenditure cap during the capped expenditure period in relation to an election—

(a) the amount payable in accordance with section 130P to that agent is reduced by an amount equal to 20 times the excess amount; or

(b) if the excess amount is greater than the amount payable in accordance with section 130P—the payment will not be made to the relevant agent.

(8) If, in relation to the payment of an amount in accordance with section 130P to an agent, the Electoral Commissioner is not satisfied, based on an expenditure return under section 130ZQ furnished by the relevant agent, that—

(a) in the case of a payment to be made to the agent of a registered political party—the combined political expenditure of the party and candidates endorsed by the party; or

(b) in the case of a payment to be made to the agent of a candidate not endorsed by a registered political party or a group whose members are not endorsed by a registered political party—the political expenditure of the candidate or group (as the case requires),

exceeds the amount that would, apart from this subsection, be payable in accordance with section 130P to the relevant agent—

(c) in a case where there is no satisfactory evidence of political expenditure—a payment in accordance with section 130P will not be made to the relevant agent; or

(d) in a case where there is satisfactory evidence of political expenditure but the total of that expenditure is less than the amount that would otherwise be payable in accordance with section 130P to the relevant agent—the amount payable in accordance with section 130P is reduced to an amount equal to the amount of that expenditure.

(9) The following provisions apply for the purposes of determining the deductible amount in relation to election funding payable to the agent of a registered political party:

(a) for a general election (of members of the House of Assembly), the deductible amount is determined—

(i) by dividing the number of districts in which a candidate is endorsed by the party at the general election by the total number of House of Assembly districts and then multiplying the quotient of that division by the aggregate primary vote to obtain the relevant aggregate primary vote; and

(ii) by dividing the sum of the eligible votes given for the candidates endorsed by the party at the general election by the relevant aggregate primary vote; and

(iii) by subtracting 0.33 from the quotient obtained in subparagraph (ii); and

(iv) if the result of the subtraction under subparagraph (iii) is negative, the deductible amount is $0; and

(v) if the result of the subtraction under subparagraph (iii) is positive, the deductible amount is the amount obtained by—

(A) multiplying the result of that subtraction by the relevant aggregate primary vote; and

(B) multiplying the result of that multiplication by $5.50 (2026 indexed);

(b) for a Legislative Council election, the deductible amount is determined—

(i) by dividing the sum of the eligible votes given for the groups and candidates endorsed by the party at the election by the Legislative Council aggregate primary vote; and

(ii) by subtracting 0.33 from the quotient obtained in subparagraph (0; and

(iii) if the result of the subtraction under subparagraph (H) is negative, the deductible amount is $0; and

(iv) if the result of the subtraction under subparagraph (ii) is positive, the deductible amount is the amount obtained by—

(A) multiplying the result of that subtraction by the total primary vote; and

(B) multiplying the result of that multiplication by $5.50 (2026 indexed).

(10) In this section—

aggregate primary vote means the total number of eligible votes cast in favour of all of the candidates in a general election of members of the House of Assembly;

deductible amount—see subsection (9);

excess amount, in relation to a person, means the amount by which—

(a) the political expenditure of the person; and

(b) any political expenditure of another person or body incurred as part of a scheme of a kind referred to in section 130ZZE(a3)(a),

exceed the applicable expenditure cap;

Legislative Council aggregate primary vote means the total number of eligible votes cast in favour of all of the candidates (including members of groups) in a Legislative Council election.

New clause inserted.

Clauses 22 to 25 passed.

Mr TEAGUE: I have just had handed to me an amendment to be moved by the Special Minister of State that has been filed today. That goes to clause 21, and I just noted that the committee has just dealt with clause 21, so it might be appropriate that the minister might like to move in terms of the amended clause 21—I do not know—I have just been handed it, anyway.

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I think I can assist the committee. I moved to insert the new clause. I made myself very clear, but if it would assist the member for Heysen and also others coming to the record later—

The CHAIR: My understanding is that clause 21 the minister sought to insert is actually the money clause which cannot be accepted by the Legislative Council. The minister has moved that and it has also been passed. I am not sure what that other paperwork is but we have dealt with it, in my view. It is my understanding that is what has been agreed to.

Mr TEAGUE: How was it agreed to?

The CHAIR: By inserting it because it was not in the original bill. It cannot be an amendment because there was no clause 21 previously. Even though it seeks to be an amendment, it is actually introduced for the first time in this chamber because it could not be accepted by the upper house because it is a money clause. The Clerk concurs with my view.

My understanding is that the clause in erased type is not in the bill, and has been taken out and the minister is inserting a new clause, the form of which is as distributed. That is my understanding, which has happened.

Mr TEAGUE: The point goes then to the last two words: 'as distributed'. As distributed, as it was passed, is the bill as received from the Legislative Council.

The CHAIR: No, it is not distributed by the Legislative Council because it is not in the Legislative Council.

Mr TEAGUE: The bill as received from the Legislative Council includes a number of clauses that are struck out because they are money clauses. We have moved a number of these clauses along the way. This one is the exception in that—I know about the change. The point is that that has been handed to me after—and the committee is in the same position—the committee has dealt with clause 21.

It ought to be clear, and somebody ought to have it to hand, that we are not dealing with clause 21 as struck out in the version received from the Legislative Council. We are dealing, unusually, with a clause in the form of an amendment that has been filed today and it stands separately. All of that is on the record.

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: Point of order, Mr Chair—

The CHAIR: Hold on, before we get into—

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: Just half a moment—

The CHAIR: No, minister, can you just resume your seat. Member for Heysen, resume your seat. Just to remove any doubt, minister, will you please stand up and move that clause 21 as distributed.

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I certainly will. I will repeat exactly for the benefit of the committee the words that I used. I move:

On page 40, after line 16, to insert new clause 21 as distributed.

The CHAIR: That is what we are dealing with. Everybody clear on that?

Mr TEAGUE: I have a question. So how come? Is there a correction, if so, what is it? What are we here for.

The CHAIR: The member for Heysen just said to me a minute ago you understood the difference in the one that was struck out and the one that was in the paper circulated. You know that. Is that correct?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, but the committee needs the benefit of it.

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: That is what you said.

Mr TEAGUE: Of course it is what I said.

The CHAIR: Okay, that is what you said. You are speaking on behalf of the opposition.

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: It has been passed—done.

Mr TEAGUE: Not at all. I do not know what the difficulty is.

The CHAIR: The advice to me by the Clerk is that the matter has been dealt with, and if some members are unaware, that is their job, to be aware.

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: Exactly.

The CHAIR: The member for—

Mr Basham: Finniss, sir.

The CHAIR: The member for Finniss, unless you have a question on the clause which is before us now, resume your seat. Member for Finniss, that is my ruling. The last clause has been dealt with.

Mr BASHAM: I seek a view on clarity on how this is to proceed. Only moments ago, I went and collected the bill and the member for Heysen's amendment, and I was told that was all there was. I was handed this amendment after clause 21 had been amended. I do not know the difference between the two and would love some clarity.

The CHAIR: And you are not going to get it, because it has been passed, and you can ask him after.

Mr TEAGUE: It is outrageous.

The CHAIR: The member for Heysen will immediately apologise to the Chair or I will report to the Speaker and we will have the house deal with the matter. It is up to you.

Mr TEAGUE: It might need reporting to the Speaker, because we have to get to grips with what has just gone on. It is completely to assist the committee. It is not a matter of process; it is a matter to assist the committee.

The CHAIR: I have just said to you what the advice from the Clerk to me was.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, but it is not secret squirrels.

The CHAIR: I am not saying it is.

Mr TEAGUE: If they are going to come along with an amendment—

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: You have already got it.

Mr TEAGUE: The committee needs it on the record.

The CHAIR: Do you wish to report progress and I will raise it with the Speaker?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: Point of order, Mr Chair: this is just so straightforward. The member for Heysen already knows there is one digit that has been corrected. For the benefit of the member for Finniss, that is what it is.

Mr TEAGUE: Where is it?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: Page 42, line 35, insert at section 130Q(9)(a)(v)(B), '$8.00' be deleted and substituted with '$5.50', and then consequential amendments. I observe the member for Heysen is already aware and so I emphasise that he already informed the house that he is already aware.

The CHAIR: My understanding is, irrespective of what people knew or did not know, or perceived to know or did not know, that clause, as moved by the minister, has been passed by the committee.

Mr TEAGUE: Without it being to hand to anyone in the committee and therefore—

The Hon. D.R. Cregan interjecting:

Mr TEAGUE: It was not actually available to anyone in the committee at the time that it was passed. As a result, what we have in front of us is the struck-out version, which is consistent with those previous. There is no controversy about this. It is a matter of what is clear on the record.

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: The motion was the new clause. That is what is in Hansard. Move on.

Mr TEAGUE: That we have not actually had handed around the committee—that is the trouble. It ought to be possible to ask a question about the change. There is no difficulty about that. It is a matter of understanding why there is a change.

The Hon. D.R. Cregan interjecting:

Mr TEAGUE: No, we do not.

The CHAIR: I am just trying to find—

Mr TEAGUE: I am seeking the call to ask a question on the new clause 21. It could be dealt with very quickly. I would have thought the government would like to explain.

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I just did, in relation to the member for Finniss's question.

Mr TEAGUE: Chair, I am seeking the call to ask a question that can be dealt with really rather quickly.

The CHAIR: We are up to clause 26.