Bills

Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1 passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Franks–1]—

Page 2, lines 6 and 7—Delete clause 2 and substitute:

2—Commencement

(1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act will come into operation on a day to be fixed by proclamation.

(2) Section 12A will come into operation on 1 July 2017.

This addresses an issue that arises from the previous debate on this bill in December 2014. At that point there was a range of sunset clause options moved, and while mine was a 12-month sunset clause, the opposition, I believe, moved a three-year sunset clause. My advice at the time in moving that sunset clause for the provisions that we changed in December 2014 was that within the 12 months I would have to come back with further amendments. My advice would, I believe, translate to mean that, given the three-year sunset clause, before the expiration of the three years from the implementation of that sunset clause, similar amendments would need to come back to this place.

I have a question of the government: on which date does the current sunset clause of three years lapse, and does the government intend to bring back a restorative amendment bill at that time, or at what date? Certainly, my amendment seeks to ensure that we do not have to reopen this legislation and come back to this place with a single bill to address that sunset clause issue. My understanding also—and I ask the minister to respond—is that what will happen when section 13O(1) expires is that the act will not revert back to what is currently the case, that is, the suspension on specified grounds of the executive, but indeed due to the operations of the Acts Interpretation Act there will be nothing there to replace it. My amendment simply replaces the previous criteria by which the minister could suspend the executive and restores those conditions.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can indicate that I think the first two amendments go to the same issue. I have had a number of discussions with the honourable member about this and I thank her for it. As I understand it, it essentially puts what used to be in the act prior to the changes back into the act, so that it does not leave us with nothing once the sunset clause finishes. I can indicate that the government will support the amendment. However, I think I should place on the record that the issue about perhaps extending the sunset clause is something we will want to think about and perhaps revisit next year. We will support the amendments as they are stated, but it is something that we will want to discuss and potentially revisit next year to see if that should continue in the form that is currently in the act.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I just want to put on the record that we are prepared to support your amendment, but it is very much the Liberal Party's position that we do believe that the minister has the ability to have this valuable tool to try to ensure that there is the best possible governance on the lands. We do not want to see it fall back into a situation where a recalcitrant APY Executive drags the chain on performing the duties that they are supposed to perform to ensure the wellbeing of Aboriginal people on the lands without the ability for the minister to act, and reasonably quickly, to make sure that we do get the best possible outcome.

I also will be very keen to revisit this particular issue. I thank the honourable member for her amendment and indicate that we will support it. We are very keen to ensure that the minister absolutely keeps this particular power, which he has not used, but over the last couple of years I am led to believe it has been a valuable tool in the minister's negotiations with the APY Executive. I also flag that we really want to see these powers perhaps enshrined long term.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As one member who is not a member of the group that has been discussing this for some time, my question to the minister is: the government of which he is a member brought urgent legislation through the parliament to say that the previous arrangements for dismissal or suspension of the board were unsatisfactory and they needed tougher powers to suspend the board for any reason the minister sees fit, which is what is currently in the act.

My recollection was that, in the last week of parliament, the government came to the chamber and there was a lot of concern expressed at the time about the rushing of the legislation through, but the minister and the government said the current provisions were unsatisfactory and the government needed greater powers. Can the minister outline why, in the subsequent period, the powers have not been used?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. I think I have said a number of times in this chamber—and I have certainly made this clear in discussions with members of the executive of the APY and in other discussions I have had, and in answers to questions from the media—I am not opposed to an administrator being appointed. There have been significant improvements in accountability and transparency in governance on the APY lands. While those improvements continue, and continue to improve, there is no need to appoint an administrator, but I agree with the Hon. Terry Stephens: it has been a useful tool in making sure we can see those continued improvements. I think that having that ability has been a very useful tool to seeing those improvements happen. I am not opposed to that power being used should it be necessary.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Are members of parliament to interpret from the response by the minister to the Hon. Tammy Franks' question that at this stage he and the government have given no commitment to definitely come back and reintroduce those powers prior to the expiration of the period, only that he is prepared to discuss it and to consider it?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is exactly what I have said. It is something we will revisit next year, whether we look at extending, enshrining or otherwise the provisions that have been changed. I am not going to pre-empt anything that this chamber might do, and I do not think that would be a proper thing for me to do, but I have flagged that, while we support the Hon. Tammy Franks' amendments to make sure that it does not go to a situation where there is nothing at all left in relation to administrators, so we are prepared to support this, I want to be clear that this is something we will be looking at, revisiting, next year.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That is what I am trying to clarify. A minister saying he is prepared to have a look at it is no commitment at all. I am just clarifying that he is giving no commitment to making changes. It may well be that he looks at it and whatever amendment passes today—which is, in essence, going back to the old situation, pre the urgent legislation being rushed through because of the terrible things that were going on in the APY lands at the time—it may well be that the minister, after discussing and reflecting on it, makes no change at all. Is that fair to say that the minister, having discussed it and reflected on it, may well not come back and make any further changes subsequent to the changes that will now go through the house, potentially this afternoon?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am not going to be drawn into some hypothetical about what I would do in certain circumstances. I have flagged this as something we will have a look at and address. I think quite rightly with APY legislation we have looked at what the circumstances are for the time, had consultation and made amendments where necessary. As I have said, this is something that we certainly will look at next year and I undertake to discuss it with the opposition and with the honourable member, who has a great interest in this area. I am not going to be drawn into hypotheticals about what may or may not happen. I think that answers the question.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The minister may well not want to be drawn on hypotheticals; that is a decision for him. But as a member of the committee, let me say that my judgement is that the minister is unlikely to come back to the chamber prior to what was going to be the expiration of the current power, and that this is, in essence, an organised retreat from the government's position when they came before this parliament and said that the situation was so dire and so urgent that they had to have the power which exists under section 13O:

The Minister may, for any reason he or she thinks fit, by notice in the Gazette, suspend the Executive Board…

That was not something that the Liberal Party brought to the chamber. It was something that the government, the minister, supported and brought to the chamber. He voted for it, and said this was important and it was required. As I said, I have not been involved in the discussions, I am not a member of the Aboriginal Lands Committee, so I can see that therefore I am not privy to the detailed discussions that have ensued in getting to this particular point. To me it just appears to be a device that is being used for the government to retreat on the position it put to the parliament at that particular time.

My question to the minister, given that he has said that he is going to support this new package of amendments, is: can he just clarify for me, or can the Hon. Ms Franks clarify for me—and I might not have understood the package of amendments, but, as I understand it, under the current act, up until a cut-off period, which I assume is July 2017 (although the minister did not answer the Hon. Ms Franks's question as to when the expiry date was, but given that her amendment is July 2017, I am assuming that is the case)—if under the current act the minister, up until July 2017, has, the unlimited power to suspend for any reason he or she thinks fit. So it is quite clear that in the period from now up until July 2017 the minister has the power to suspend the board for any reason.

The package of amendments the minister is now supporting says, as I understand it, that after July 2017 the minister will have lesser powers—that is, the old powers; he has to go through various hoops, etc.—and that section 12A is suspended until 1 July 2017 and the unlimited powers are actually removed. So, in the period between now and July 2017, is there no power to suspend the board? That is, the limited power the Hon. Tammy Franks is introducing commences after July but the current existing power appears to have gone prior to the period of July 2017.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can simply answer that question; that is, if I seek the indulgence of the mover of the amendment. My advice is: no, as it stands, right now, it will remain—it does not remove the current power.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: How is that the case, because the amendment that he is supporting now says that section 12A will come into operation on 1 July 2017? If you look at section 12A, which is the companion amendment, it says:

(1) Section 13O(1)—delete 'The Minister may, for any reason he or she thinks fit' and substitute:

Then it goes through the new provisions, and then says 'delete subsection (1a)'. Subsection (1a) is the one which says it will expire three years after the day on which it comes into operation. Can the minister explain how this package of amendments works for the period between now and 30 June?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I can respond to the Hon. Rob Lucas's questions, and with the advice of parliamentary counsel, who of course assisted in drafting this and, indeed, provided those previous drafting notes from the sunset clause, and I imagine that the opposition, who brought the sunset clause to this place, into the debate and into the act in December 2014, also received similar advice.

What this does is it actually addresses the issues that the opposition introduced into this bill. It does not create any new clauses, it actually simply affects the opposition's sunset clause. In terms of parliamentary counsel's advice on the wording of Amendment No. 2 [Franks-1], specifically to section 130(1a)—delete subsection (1a), that takes effect as of 1 July 2017. So until 1 July 2017 the status quo exists, which is that the minister has the power for any reason he or she thinks fit. At that point of 1 July 2017, which is, I think, a couple of months before the three-year sunset clause would expire, leaving no provisions for the suspension of the board, it ensures that the previous act is reinstated.

That act was done with consultation at the time. I certainly did not see any reason to create any new criteria. The minister would have to follow due process. Given that we are actually looking at good governance, I think this council should be supporting the minister, also following good governance, having to give appropriate directions under section 9D(4), 13A(3), 13G(4) or 13N. It certainly leaves the minister with many options to pursue, suspension of the board, if he or she has reasonable grounds to do so, and follows that process.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [AborAffRec–1]—

Page 3, lines 20 and 21 [clause 4, paragraph (h) of inserted definition of serious offence]—

Delete paragraph (h)

There are a series of government amendments and, as we progress through those, I wish to place on the record my gratitude to honourable members in this chamber and also in the other chamber, particularly the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs, with whom I have spent many hours discussing issues in general but in particular the changes that we put forward. I thank honourable members for their willingness to work towards these changes which are aimed at bringing about better governance on the APY lands. As I said, in particular I thank the shadow minister in the other place for his help in looking at these issues and being part of the process of drafting many of these amendments.

This clause relates to eligibility criteria for APY Executive members as amended in clause 16(7) which states:

(2) An Anangu is not eligible to nominate for an office of member of the Executive Board in an election, or to hold office as a member of the Executive Board, if he or she has been found guilty of a serious offence within the preceding 10 years.

This clause defines these offences, which include a serious offence against a person, sexual offences, serious criminal trespass, serious dishonesty offences, serious drug offences and offences against the APY act and bylaws. What this amendment does is it deletes paragraph (h) relating to the APY by-law re petrol from the definition in 'serious offences'. Two serious offences are listed in the definition when covering the same type of offending, so this recognises the fact that the two serious offences listed covering the same type of offending are just the one.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I indicate the opposition's support and acknowledge the fact that our shadow ministers worked quite closely with the minister with regard to the government amendments. We will be having a discussion about government amendment No. 2 regarding the Electoral Commissioner when the time comes, but I will put on the record that we support this government amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 5 and 6 passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [T Stephens–1]—

Page 4, lines 17 and 18 [clause 7(3)]—Delete subclause (3) and substitute:

(3) Section 9(8)—delete 'Minister must cause the electorates constituted by' and substitute 'Electoral Commissioner must review the electorates constituted in accordance with'

Basically this amendment empowers the Electoral Commissioner to conduct the review in lieu of the minister. We believe that this is a common-sense amendment in that it empowers the experts in this field, the Electoral Commission, to conduct reviews of APY electorates before each election. Under the current provisions the minister must cause the review of electorates.

As we have seen in the past, perhaps, a gross malapportionment has been maintained for the last 10 years, despite three reviews having been conducted. Clearly these reviews have not been what we would deem successful. The Watarru electorate had three residents, or fewer, for three consecutive elections. If the state's pre-eminent body in drawing electoral boundaries is not best placed to conduct these regular reviews, we wonder who is.

We know that, with the transient nature of the population, as well as the changing geography of services and their providers, these boundaries should be reviewed regularly. I commend the amendment to the council.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I indicate that the government will be supporting the opposition's amendment and supports the general thrust of what the opposition is doing with this amendment. I will flag, however (and I flagged it with the honourable member earlier today), that we will, between the houses, have further discussion, particularly involving the Electoral Commissioner, just to talk about the practicalities.

If further changes are required, we will work with the opposition and keep the Hon. Tammy Franks informed and involved in the discussions about any changes in consultation with the Electoral Commissioner, if needed, to make this more workable or what, from the Electoral Commissioner's viewpoint, is necessary to ensure that. We support the amendment and the thrust of what is trying to be achieved, but flag that we are keen to consult further about this between the houses.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I rise briefly on behalf of the Greens to say that we will be supporting this amendment. Certainly we will be looking forward to the upcoming briefing from the Electoral Commissioner on this bill. Should there be any problems with the implementation of this particular element, we would certainly be open to revisiting that, but at this late stage it seems that the most appropriate course is to put the Electoral Commissioner in that role.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I thank the Hon. Ms Franks and the minister for their indications of support. We have worked hard to try to rush this bill again, and we have only just filed this amendment today, so I appreciate the minister's indication of support, and I understand that further discussions will be had. I acknowledge that this has only been relatively newly flagged.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 8 to 12 passed.

New clause 12A.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Franks–1]—

Page 6, after line 16—Insert:

12A—Amendment of section 13O—Minister may suspend Executive Board

(1) Section 13O(1)—delete 'The Minister may, for any reason he or she thinks fit' and substitute:

If the Executive Board refuses or fails to comply with a direction of the Minister under section 9D(4), 13A(3), 13G(4) or 13N, or not less than 4 members of the Executive Board refuse or fail to attend a meeting called by the Minister under section 11, the Minister may

(2) Section 13O(1a)—delete subsection (1a)

This simply inserts the previous provisions and is consequential on that first amendment of the start date of 1 July for the reinstatement of the previous provisions for suspending a board.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I indicate that for the reasons we previously foreshadowed the government will support this amendment, but I again place on record that this is something we will want to revisit in the first half of next year.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: We also support the amendment and I echo the government's sentiments.

New clause inserted.

Clause 13.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Franks–1]—

Page 6, line 20 [clause 13, inserted section 35(1)]—Delete 'may' and substitute 'must'

This amendment goes to the appointment of a conciliator and so opens new territory in this debate. This amendment simply changes the word 'may' to 'must appoint a conciliator'. The reason I have taken this step is due to previous examples where, under three consecutive ministers, a conciliator or a conciliation panel was not appointed and certainly there were many issues brought, particularly to the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee as a result of there being no conciliator in place. Certainly to address this situation ever occurring again I think the word 'must' is vital to ensure that there is a conciliator panel as part of the potential mediation processes where disputes arise.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her amendment and her explanation of her amendment. I can indicate I do not disagree with the thrust of what the honourable member is putting forward. There are a number of amendments later on filed by the government that seek to address the same thing. I think there are essentially two packages: it is the Hon. Tammy Franks' amendments about conciliators, and then there are government amendments about conciliators.

Whilst I do not disagree with the thrust of what she is saying, the government amendments take care of this particular one and put the word 'must' back in. They do it in a slightly different manner. Again, I want to thank the shadow minister in another place who was instrumental in helping develop the suite of amendments that the government has put forward. Whilst we will not be supporting her amendment, it is not that we do not agree with what the amendment is trying to do, it is that we have it in a slightly different fashion in government amendments.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Could the minister point out where the minister 'must' appoint a conciliator under the government amendments? Certainly you must refer an application under the section, but where do you have that the conciliator must be appointed?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her further explanation and again thank the willingness of members of this chamber who, I think it is fair to say, are at one with trying to create the best outcomes from what we are doing with this legislative process. I can indicate that, after having had discussions with the Hon. Terry Stephens, who has the lead for the opposition and with the Hon. Tammy Franks, the government is prepared to support this amendment that goes to just the establishment of the panel. It is not inconsistent with everything else that we are doing in terms of once the panel is established, and how matters are referred. So we are happy to support this amendment but, again, we will be indicating that what flows on from this, we will be supporting our suite of amendments rather than the Hon. Tammy Franks'.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I indicate that I will be progressing with this amendment but I am actually more attracted to the wording of the government amendments with regard to process once there is a conciliator in place and that that is ensured. I am certainly happy to indicate that I will be supporting and pursuing this amendment on the 'must' of the conciliator being appointed, but I actually was more attracted to the language and the process that the government has foreshadowed in its amendments about dealing with any applications made to the conciliator.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I indicate that we are prepared to support the amendment, but my understanding is that, with the reasoning in the government's suite of amendments that we certainly had input into, we were concerned about frivolous and vexatious claims. I understand that we are still going to take care of that in the government's amendment. So we will support the Hon. Tammy Franks' amendment but, obviously, are very supportive of the government's amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Franks–1]—

Page 6, lines 29 and 30 [clause 13, inserted section 35(5)]—Delete 'for any reason the Minister thinks fit' and substitute:

with the approval of Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (and, if a member of the panel is removed, the Minister must cause a report setting out the reasons for the removal of the member to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within 6 sitting days after the removal)

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: To clarify, this is simply also about the actual appointment of the conciliator so I will be progressing with this. The government's amendments about the process of an application to the conciliator do not cover this ground. This amendment ensures that should a conciliator be removed, then the minister would have to consult with the APY and table a report to alert the parliament to this action taken to remove a conciliator.

Again, I do so because for three successive ministers there was no conciliator and the parliament was not aware, even though under the act that should have been the mechanism for dealing with disputes which, of course, as I say, ended up before the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee. So ensuring that very small mechanism of, again, good governance should there be no conciliator in place, it would come to the attention of the parliament and that is what this amendment seeks to do.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her explanation of her amendment and I do appreciate that this does not necessarily cut across the process contained in the amendments that the government has; however, the government will not be supporting this amendment. There are similar reasons and similar language around the appointment of an administrator, which was an issue that was agitated in late 2014, and for very similar reasons the government is keen for the minister to retain that ability, for reasons the minister thinks fit, for the removal of the conciliator.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: Minister, is it not because you are concerned about the possibility of, to use colloquial words I suppose, a rogue conciliator. If there was somebody who had been appointed to that sort of position that you thought was acting in, let's say, an interesting or improper way, you want the ability to be able to remove them?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: What the Hon. Terry Stephens puts on the record is essentially correct. It is a much more complicated process. While I understand the motivation and thrust of what the Hon. Tammy Franks is moving—similar to the debate that was had in 2014—it is not something that we support. As outlined quite succinctly by the Hon. Terry Stephens, this is an area in which it is our view that it is important for the minister to retain that ability, rather than have this further process put in place.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Given the government's opposition to this amendment, what I would indicate is that if the government's issue is with the process of insertion of 'with the approval of Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara', certainly the intent here is to ensure that a report is tabled to parliament should a conciliator be removed by the minister. So I ask the minister, between the houses, to look at that issue because I think that in terms of good governance it would be appropriate for the minister to alert the parliament should he or she remove a conciliator.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her comments, and I am concerned that she has some sort of mind-reading device because that is exactly what I was about to say. This is an area that I am happy to continue to discuss with the honourable member, and if there is some change, to make that between the houses.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I indicate that I will not support the amendment on behalf of the opposition, but I am pleased that those discussions will take place because I also appreciate the intent of the Hon. Tammy Franks's amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 3 [AborAffRec–1]—

Page 6, after line 36 [clause 13, inserted section 35(6)]—Insert:

and

(c) should, as far as is reasonably practicable, endeavour to appoint conciliators who have qualifications and experience in law or mediation.

This is the start of the suite of amendments that relate, essentially, to the process of how conciliators will work. This one is about the standards, qualifications and experience needed for conciliators. Again, there are a number of these—and I have to give credit—and they are as much a result of the work of the opposition as they are of the government, although they are filed in my name. I commend the amendment to the chamber.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I indicate the Greens will be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: The opposition will support the amendment.

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: The next amendment is amendment No. 5 [Franks-1], clause 13, page 7, line 3.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I indicate I will not be pursuing this amendment.

The CHAIR: The next amendment is amendment No. 6 [Franks-1], clause 13, page 7, lines 5 and 6.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will not be pursuing this amendment.

The CHAIR: The next amendment is amendment No. 7 [Franks-1]. Are you going ahead with that?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: No, that is also consequential. The government has outlined an appropriate conciliation process to ensure that matters are dealt with, and the Greens are certainly comfortable with supporting the government's amendments.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 4 [AborAffRec–1]—

Page 7, lines 7 to 14 [clause 13, inserted section 35A(3) and (4)]—Delete inserted subsections (3) and (4) and substitute:

(3) On receiving an application under this section, the Minister—

(a) must refer the application to a member of the panel of conciliators to determine whether or not the matter is frivolous or vexatious, or otherwise lacks merit; and

(b) must, if that member determines that the matter is not frivolous or vexatious or lacking in merit, appoint a conciliator (not being the conciliator who made the determination) from the panel of conciliators to hear the matter.

Briefly, this is further to the suite of amendments that deal with the process. This goes to the point the Hon. Terry Stephens raised earlier in this committee about some way to make sure there are not vexatious or frivolous claims that require a great deal of energy and resources to be investigating. Essentially, what it does is have one of the panel of the conciliators that the government must appoint—after the Hon. Tammy Franks's amendments—basically prima facie determining if there is merit in the issue that is being raised and, if there is, then referring it to one of the fellow conciliators to look at the merits of that issue.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I indicate the opposition's support for the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens also support the amendment. It is actually a superior process.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 14 and 15 passed.

Clause 16.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 5 [AborAffRec–1]—

Page 8, lines 25 to 28 [clause 16(3), inserted clause 2(3)]—Delete inserted subclause (3) and substitute:

(3) The regulations—

(a) must specify each of the community groups that comprise a particular electorate (and, to avoid doubt, each community group on the lands must wholly or partly comprise an electorate); and

(b) must, for ease of reference, include maps of the electorates setting out the community group or groups comprising the electorate.

It is self-explanatory. Again, this was as the result of a suggestion that was worked on between the shadow minister and the government to make sure that there was provision in the act for provision of maps in terms of the electorates that comprise the areas that will be the electorates that people are elected to under the new elections.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: The opposition will be supporting the amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 6 [AborAffRec–1]—

Page 9, lines 5 to 10 [clause 16(7), inserted clause 6(1)]—Delete subclause (1) and substitute:

(1) A person is eligible to nominate for an office of member of the Executive Board to be elected from an electorate if—

(a) he or she is Anangu; and

(b) on the closing date in relation to the election—

(i) he or she is an elector enrolled on the State electoral roll in respect of a place of residence within the electorate; or

(ii) he or she is provisionally enrolled on the State electoral roll in respect of a place of residence within the electorate and will attain 18 years of age on or before the polling day for the election.

There are a number of amendments now that deal with essentially the eligibility for voting on the APY lands. There was a great deal of discussion and what these amendments do is create a system for the basis for the roll to vote on the APY lands—and I note that up until now and in elections for the APY Executive previously, there has been no voter roll. I know in a challenge that was taken, and heard by Chief Justice Kourakis I think after the last APY elections, that was certainly something that the court commented on, the difficulties when there is no roll in determining eligibility. What this seeks to do is to effectively regularise the roll and treat APY, quite reasonably, like any other place or council in South Australia that elects people, in terms of using the state electoral roll as the basis for the roll for who can vote and nominate in these elections.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I indicate that the Greens will be supporting this but I do have a couple of questions at this point. If the minister could address how particularly those on dialysis, who are not in their communities, will be treated with respect to the three-month residency requirement, and also what will be the treatment of people without identification documents and also residential addresses. What thought has been given to that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her questions. They are good questions and I know have formed some discussion. In relation to dialysis, if your enrolled address is a community on the lands, then that is the cut-off: because of your enrolled address you will be able to vote. The Electoral Commissioner has been of assistance in making sure that the processes that are in this act have been looked at and had some degree of thought put into them to make them as workable as they can be, but I do not rule out the possibility that we will come back at some stage to improve the system if necessary. Similarly to state elections, if someone's place of residence is on the lands, then for a state election if that is where their enrolled electoral address is, they will vote for that state electoral district for where they are enrolled, regardless of where they might be getting treatment at the time. That will be the case under this. It will be based on your enrolled address.

In terms of ID, I am advised that it will be managed as it is for state elections. For people coming to vote, it has been managed well for many state and federal elections on the APY lands by the teams that go from the Australian Electoral Commission and the state electoral office conducting those elections. It will be similar to any state or federal elections, to make sure that people can vote. In terms of street addresses, I know there is a process that the transport department is going through now to try to make sure that there are more street addresses, but I am advised that there are many people who do not have street addresses but are on the electoral roll, as in the Ernabella community or in the Pipalyatjara community, without necessarily having a number and the name of a street.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Thank you for that clarification. Certainly, I appreciate those responses. There is a slight additional element to the dialysis, which is that family members are also often dislocated while the patient is receiving treatment. I just want to seek assurances on their behalf as well. With the ID, I was not specifically meaning when somebody turns up to vote, but getting on the electoral roll at the start of the process.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, in terms of family members, it will be very similar to if it was a state election. If they are entitled to and are enrolled on the APY lands, then they are on the electoral roll and that forms a basis for this. In terms of getting on the electoral roll, I think similar numbers have voted in state elections as have voted in APY Executive elections in the past. They have been quite similar numbers; the turnout has been very similar. There has been discussion already, and the department and particularly the Electoral Commission will run an information and education program to make sure before the next election that people are aware of these changes and have an opportunity, should they not be on the electoral roll, or not correctly enrolled, where they should be enrolled on the electoral roll, to fix that.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: In previous elections, there has been a voters' roll that is different from the electoral roll. Is that correct or not?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can advise the honourable member that in previous elections there has been no roll. I am advised now, and certainly that has been raised with me a number of times, in communities right from Pipalyatjara to not as far as Indulkana but certainly the central APY lands, that there has been no electoral roll. I think the processes here improve that, and I think it is something we expect in terms of proper process and transparency in voting, to have a roll. In previous APY elections there has been no roll, and that was certainly some of the commentary from the decision that involved the Pipalyatjara/Kalka election that was in court after the last elections.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: In the past, you did not need to be on the South Australian electoral roll to vote in APY elections. My question is: what education process are you going to run so that people do not front up to an APY election and find out they cannot vote because they are not, and have never been, on the electoral roll? That could be a major problem, I suspect.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have been able to consult with the Electoral Commissioner. Prior to the election, where there will be a roll for the first time, education campaigns will be run across the lands that will include information in languages to inform people of these changes, education campaigns with APY in communities and with community councils. Because there is no roll at the moment, we cannot cross-reference to see if the ones who voted in state elections are the same ones who voted in APY Executive elections in the past.

My guess is they are probably very similar individuals who have voted in state elections and in APY elections, but we do not know because there has not been a roll in the past. Certainly there will be an information and education campaign run to inform people of the changes before the first election under this legislation, and it will be translated into languages to make sure that people are aware that for this election, if they are not on the roll, then they will not be able to vote.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: While the Electoral Commissioner is here, I would just like to wish him well because I can imagine the screams and allegations of corruption if long-term residents front up to vote in the APY elections and cannot vote. The importance of trying to get everybody on the electoral roll is obviously paramount, and I wish the Electoral Commissioner well in his efforts, because it is going to be a monumental job, I think.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 7 [AborAffRec–1]—

Page 9, lines 31 to 33 [clause 16(7), inserted clause 6(4)(c)]—Delete paragraph (c)

Amendment No 8 [AborAffRec–1]—

Page 10, after line 10 [clause 16(7), inserted clause 6]—After inserted subclause (9) insert:

(10) In this clause—

closing date, in relation to an election, means the day fixed by the returning officer for the close of the voters roll for that election (being a day falling not less than 3 months prior to the polling day for the election);

State electoral roll means the electoral roll kept under the Electoral Act 1985 relating to the relevant district (within the meaning of that Act).

Amendment No 9 [AborAffRec–1]—

Page 10, lines 11 to 37 [clause 16(7), inserted clause 6A]—Delete clause 6A and substitute:

6A—Voters roll

(1) There will be a voters roll prepared for the purposes of each election under section 9.

(2) A voters roll is to be prepared by the returning officer.

(3) A voters roll may differentiate the persons enrolled on the voters roll according to the electorates in relation to which they are entitled to vote.

(4) A person is entitled (without application) to be enrolled on a voters roll in relation to an electorate if—

(a) he or she is Anangu; and

(b) on the closing date in relation to the election for which the voters roll is prepared—

(i) he or she is an elector enrolled on the State electoral roll in respect of a place of residence within the electorate; or

(ii) he or she is provisionally enrolled on the State electoral roll in respect of a place of residence within the electorate and will attain 18 years of age on or before the polling day for the election.

(5) The voters roll must, in relation to each enrolled person, contain—

(a) the person's full name; and

(b) the person's residential address; and

(c) the name of the community group (if any) of which the person is a member,

and may contain such other information as the returning officer thinks fit.

(6) The returning officer may appoint such number of electoral registrars as he or she thinks appropriate.

(7) The electoral registrars must assist in the preparation of a voters roll in accordance with any requirement of the returning officer.

(8) If—

(i) an Anangu is, on the closing date in relation to an election, enrolled or provisionally enrolled on the State electoral roll in respect of a place of residence that is on the lands; but

(ii) he or she is not entitled under subclause (4) to be enrolled on a voters roll prepared for the election because his or her place of residence does not fall within a community group forming a part of an electorate,

then, for the purposes of the election, he or she and his or her place of residence will be taken to be part of the community group specified by the returning officer.

(9) In specifying a community group under subclause (8), the returning officer should, unless he or she does not consider it appropriate to do so in all the circumstances of the case, specify the community group (being a community group that forms part of an electorate) that is located closest to the place at which the Anangu concerned resides.

(10) The returning officer may make such other rules or determinations in relation to a voters roll as he or she thinks fit.

(11) In this clause—

closing date, in relation to an election, means the day fixed by the returning officer for the close of the voters roll for that election (being a day falling not less than 3 months prior to the polling day for the election);

State electoral roll means the electoral roll kept under the Electoral Act 1985 relating to the relevant district (within the meaning of that Act).

Amendment No 10 [AborAffRec–1]—

Page 10, lines 38 to 41 [clause 16(7), inserted clause 6B]—Delete 'the electoral roll in respect of' and substitute 'a voters roll under clause 6A in relation to'

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Schedule.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 11 [AborAffRec–1]—

Page 12, line 29 [Schedule 1, clause 3(1)(a)]—Before 'the electorates' insert 'Subject to this clause,'

This is an amendment that was a matter of drafting that was recommended by parliamentary counsel to make it subject to this clause. This is not a substantive amendment and does not affect the operation in any way of what we are seeking to do, but is a drafting amendment recommended by parliamentary counsel. I commend the amendment to the chamber.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 12 [AborAffRec–1]—

Page 13, after line 3 [Schedule 1, clause 3(1)]—Insert:

(ba) the closing date for the purposes of clauses 6 and 6A of Schedule 3 of the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights Act 1981 in relation to the election will be taken to be the day fixed by the returning officer for the close of the voters roll for the election (being a day falling not less than 1 month prior to the polling day for the election);

This amendment is to try to facilitate an election being held by the end of this calendar year, allowing for one month for that first election prior to polling day for people to be coming onto the roll. There is a chance we will have time to do it by the end of this calendar year, but I do accept that if the bill is held up for any reason—and there may be good reason to do that, as we go between houses—the election may be pushed into the early part of next year.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I am sure it is not appropriate for us to make small wagers during the committee stage of a bill, minister, but I am happy to have a side bar, small wager with you. The Electoral Commissioner is obviously incredibly competent, but whether he is Superman or not I am yet to see. If you can progress and have an election, so be it, but I would prefer to have a proper election with everybody having the opportunity to participate, and I am sceptical about whether you would see one this year

Amendment carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 13 [AborAffRec–1]—

Page 13, after line 6 [Schedule 1, clause 3(1)]—Insert:

(ca) the Minister must, for ease of reference, publish maps of the electorates setting out the community group or groups comprising the electorate for the election;

This is a matter we spoke about earlier. This amendment provides for this first election and for subsequent elections that maps must be published showing the boundaries of those electorates.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I think the shadow minister obviously had a hand in this. I think it is very sensible. We support it. With those few words, I wish a speedy passing of this bill.

Amendment carried; schedule as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (16:23): I move:

That the bill now be read a third time.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (16:24): I would like to thank the minister for the many discussions that he and his department have had with the very good people, Dylan Turner and Jonathan Nicholls, who have been assisting in this. It has been a very arduous process. It has been rushed and I would prefer that the next time we do something we give ourselves a little bit of time. I also thank the Hon. Tammy Franks for her input and wise counsel over the journey. We all have the same intent, we want the best outcomes, but I would ask the minister that he gives us plenty of notice and plenty of time for the next one he brings.

Bill read a third time and passed.