Electoral (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 November 2024.)

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (17:41): I rise to indicate I am the lead speaker for the opposition. I indicate the opposition's support for the bill. The bill largely is implementing the bulk of the recommendations from the election report recommendations, the 2022 South Australian State Election and 2022 Bragg By-election, to which the election report of the same names speaks. I recognise the work of the Electoral Commission of South Australia led by Commissioner Mick Sherry.

The bill also includes a small number of changes that are outside the scope of the report, including some particular provisions in relation to pre-polling. I am glad that the government accepted the opposition's amendment in relation to the particulars for the minimum amount of pre-polling. That is a welcome change and I certainly commend that in its received amended form to the house.

The extra aspects that seem to have attracted the headlines, through the reference to some sort of first dipping of the toe in the water in relation to AI in campaigning, are interesting. I am not sure that the AI aspect as it is currently set out in this bill is going to have a huge amount of work to do, but it is a sign of the times.

There is an amendment in relation to the banning of robocalls, which is an election commitment, and there are one or two questions to ask about that. I think there is some concern that I just express about the arrangements that will be now in place, the subject of the bill in relation to the provision of postal vote applications, and I just foreshadow a brief committee stage for that purpose. I otherwise commend the bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 18 passed.

Clause 19.

Mr TEAGUE: Clause 19 is an amendment to section 74A. It renders an offence to distribute an application form for the issue of declaration voting papers. I just indicate a concern about practice. There has been some treatment of this in the debate in the Legislative Council. The substituted provision will prohibit a person, other than a person acting under the authority of the Electoral Commissioner, from distributing or causing or permitting to distribute to an elector either a form for (or purporting to be) application for a declaration voting paper, or material containing, or purporting to contain, a link, code or other means by which an elector is able to apply for the issue of declaration voting papers, and there is a penalty provision of $5,000. The provision goes on to say:

(1a) It is not an offence…to distribute, or cause or permit to be distributed, an application form if—

(a) the form is provided by or under the authority of the Electoral Commissioner; and

(b) the form is distributed at—

(i) a post office; or

(ii) any other place determined by the Electoral Commissioner.

The first proposition is: can the government just give a clear indication, as would appear on the face, that this does not stop the provision of advice to someone who is seeking it, including to a member or to an electorate office, about whereabouts one might go or how one might obtain a postal vote application?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I appreciate the member for Heysen's question. The advice I have is that, so long as the advice was general in nature and did not provide a link or the form itself, then there would be no breach of the act.

Mr TEAGUE: In relation to the place that might be determined, the authority of the Electoral Commissioner in this regard is welcome, and on its face might be available if sought, but specifically in terms of the place that might be determined by the Electoral Commissioner, we see a post office is nominated already. Is there any other indication, either by way of class or expectation, as to the places that the Electoral Commissioner might determine, including places of civic and public interaction, including electorate offices throughout the state?

As a practical corollary, is the government able to give an example of appropriate behaviour in the event that an electorate office is not a designated place in response to a constituent or other person who might attend at an electorate office and say, 'I think I might need a postal vote application. How do I go about doing that?'

One scenario, obviously, if an electorate office was a nominated place, is 'Here is your application care of the Electoral Commission,' but that is all sort of wrapped up in relation to the new (1a)(b)(ii).

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: It is a sensible matter for us to reflect on here in committee. The advice I have is that the Electoral Commissioner is turning his mind to the places as may be appropriate. It may be that the Electoral Commissioner forms a view that, for example, it is necessary for a place to be a nursing home or hospital or other location where it would facilitate the objects of the act to ensure that place were recognised.

Clause passed.

Clauses 20 to 30 passed.

Clause 31.

Mr TEAGUE: This is an amendment to section 115A, automated political calls, and it contains two offence provisions that will ban so-called robocalls. It creates restrictions on a designated entity on the one hand and any person on another, prohibiting the making of a call in both cases by way of telephone and associated technology that might contain regulated content.

At its core, I think it might be well understood that a fully automated call to a telephone constitutes a robocall. There are practical gradations, I suppose, along the way that might not be tolerably clear on the face of the offence provision. I just indicate, for example, the use of automation in circumstances where calls might be being made and, in the event that there is not an answer, that a common voicemail might be left as a sort of timesaving measure on behalf of the caller that might say, 'Hi, I'm calling' and leave a number or something of that nature.

That is use of automation but it is not in the nature of an automated process of calls. Indeed, that leaving of the message might not meet the criteria that is being itself a call. But in circumstances where that example might illustrate a degree of uncertainty, can the government provide any assurance in that regard or indication as to the kind of call that is and is not going to offend against these new provisions?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: The advice I have is that the question here is whether the call contains regulated content, and that is the first touchstone or inquiry that a person would necessarily make in forming a view about whether there might be liability that would attach to them after the passage of this legislation if it were to pass. To that extent, the question is then whether there is an element of a prerecorded message, but of course personal calls are not captured in that way.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (32 to 37), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN (Kavel—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services, Special Minister of State) (17:56): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.