Electoral (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 2 March 2017.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (16:02): I rise on behalf of Liberal members to speak to the second reading of the Electoral (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. I apologise at the outset that, given the ongoing discussions about the legislation, my contribution might not be as well ordered as I might otherwise have wished it to be—it might be a little bits and piecey. I apologise to those members like the Hon. Mr Darley, the Hon. Mr Parnell, the Hon. Mr Hood and the Hon. Ms Vincent if it is a little bits and piecey and perhaps moves backwards and forwards a little more than it should do under more ideal circumstances.

With that apology at the outset, I will address the bill. It has been some time since the bill was debated in the House of Assembly. Later on in my contribution, I will outline, in part, the reasons for that. As I have indicated to some members, given the impending importance of the start-up date of 1 July for some key provisions of the public funding bill that we debated some time ago, there has been a view that certain amendments will need to be made to that, and I want to address some comments to that.

It is for those reasons that this bill was held up whilst discussions had transpired between the government and the opposition in relation to some of the public funding issues that have arisen as a result of the experience of dealing with the legislation in the early days. Given the timing of sitting weeks, it is therefore essential that this bill is passed by the end of this week, because we do not sit again until 20 June. I will address some comments in relation to those later on.

In broad terms, Liberal members support the provisions in the legislation. However, there are a significant number of issues and amendments. As members will be aware, I have now taken over carriage of the legislation. There are some amendments still in the name of the Hon. Andrew McLachlan, which I will move on his behalf.

There are currently amendments from the Hon. Mr Darley and the Hon. Mark Parnell. I am not sure whether they have actually been filed. It looks like they might not have been filed, but there are certainly amendments being discussed with minor parties and Independents today, as I understand it, which will be filed by the government for consideration. In terms of quantity, there are more significant numbers of amendments from the government package than there are from the Hon. Mr Darley and the Hon. Mr Parnell and the ones previously listed in the name of the Hon. Mr McLachlan.

The first key issue that I wanted to raise is in relation to government endeavours to restrict pre-poll voting. There are some significant amendments in relation to that to which we are strongly opposed, and we would respectfully ask minor parties and Independent members of the Legislative Council to consider our position on those parts of the bill that we have before us.

On the issue of pre-poll voting, the government—not previously but in this bill—has adopted a very strong position of saying that in their view, inherently, the increasing number of people voting before polling day is wrong in principle and they are seeking to significantly restrict it. They are doing that in a number of ways. There is quite an extreme provision in relation to people having to sign statutory declarations to undertake certain pre-poll votes. There is a restriction on the length of time for which pre-poll voting centres will be open.

Put simply, the government is saying polling booths throughout the state will be open prior to election day. Voters who meet certain restrictive criteria, such as they are working or travelling on polling day or for a variety of other reasons, can go along and, if they make that particular claim and fill out that particular form, they are entitled to vote in those polling booths prior to election day. The government is seeking to restrict that period to just a period of five days prior to polling day. Essentially, the Monday before polling day would be the first day that those particular pre-poll booths would be open.

From discussions with the Electoral Commission in recent weeks, in broad terms, the current arrangements under the current act are that the pre-poll booths would be open on the previous Monday; that is, there would be provision for one additional week of pre-poll voting at those polling booths.

Broadly, the current situation is that these booths would be open in the last two weeks of the election campaign. The government position is to restrict that to just the last five days of the election period. There is a complication next year in that the Monday before the fixed election date is a public holiday, so it is not entirely clear whether that means there would only be four polling days or whether the Electoral Commission would open on the Monday so that there would be five polling days.

I am told that it might be possible—and I have struggled to understand how—that the fifth day could be the previous Friday, that is, it would be open on the Friday, close Saturday, Sunday and Monday and then open again on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. I struggle with how that interpretation is possible, but that is an issue we will need to explore with the government during the committee stage of the debate.

The fourth restriction essentially says that party workers or volunteers would not be able to have certain electoral materials within 100 metres of one of these pre-poll booths. Again, members who are aware of the circumstances will know that party workers or volunteers who are there handing out how-to-vote cards may well have A-frames with the photo of the candidate and the slogan or whatever it might happen to be and, as long as they are more than six metres from the opening to the polling booth, a bit like on polling day, they are able to conduct certain campaigning activities.

The government proposes to say that they cannot do that within 100 metres of the polling booth. We think that all those restrictions are wrong in principle and restrict the ability of people who believe or undertake that they cannot vote or for whom it would be difficult to vote on election day from undertaking their democratic right to vote in a reasonable period before the election period and, similarly, to have how-to-vote cards or other materials given to them as they enter the particular polling booth without having to sign statutory declarations and the like during that particular process.

There is one other related issue, which was debated at length when we last had this bill open, and that is the issue of what is known as the postal vote application form. There was a restriction last time and a compromise arrived at which we thought was acceptable, in the end, that parties could provide to electors copies of the official postal vote application form; that is, you could get a copy of the official application form for a postal vote, but it had to be submitted to the Electoral Commission: it could not be submitted to the party organisations.

Prior to that change, the Liberal Party, the Labor Party and any party that wanted to go through it would undertake a process of putting out their own application form. It would come into the party headquarters; the party headquarters would then provide a copy of the official application form and forward it to the Electoral Commission. That process involved the party organisation. Under the current arrangements, that is not allowed; it is clearly the Electoral Commission. You can get it from the Electoral Commission, if you wish.

The party, or anyone, can send people a copy of the official application form and if you are travelling or going away you can fill it out, submit it and it goes not to the Liberal Party or the Labor Party but to the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Commission then processes it. That is an entirely reasonable position. For example, without that service being provided by parties, many people might not be aware of the capacity to apply for a postal vote. The Electoral Commission does not have an unlimited budget in terms of publicising the availability of postal votes. It certainly does not send these application forms to every household or to a large number of households. So, if that is a service to be provided by the Liberal Party, the Labor Party or any party, and they then have to go back to the Electoral Commission, what is the harm in that?

That was the compromise arrived at when we last debated it, and the government is seeking to remove that capacity in this particular piece of legislation. We again will oppose it. We are saying that the compromise we arrived at last time was a reasonable compromise. Where is the evidence of any harm since that particular compromise was arrived at? No evidence has been proffered. It is clear that the government is intent on making it harder and harder for people to lodge postal votes, to undertake pre-poll voting and for campaigning activities to go on in the pre-poll centres.

It is interesting because, when these provisions were originally put in the bill back in March 1985, then Labor attorney-general, Chris Sumner, lauded the magnificence of the reforms that the Labor administration was introducing to provide for pre-poll voting in the Electoral Act. The Hon. Chris Sumner said in his second reading explanation of the bill:

The principal objective behind the comprehensive revision of the Electoral Act is to make it as easy and as simple as possible for South Australian electors to enrol and to cast an effective vote. The bill seeks to be simple and straightforward: simple to read and understand, simple to administer and simple to comply with. All unnecessary impediments and obstacles to an elector seeking an entitlement to vote and exercising that entitlement have been removed.

The government considers this healthy for democracy because it puts the future of the state exactly where it should be: in the hands of the people. A significant initiative in this bill, and one which is likely to be adopted by other states and the commonwealth, is the simplified method of voters voting for electors who cannot attend polling booths on the day of the election in their enrolled district.

All they will be now required to do is to certify that they will be unable to attend, and they will be issued with a ballot paper. This can be done by post and most significantly at the office of any returning officer or assistant returning officer appointed for that purpose. This and other initiatives in the bill derive from three major sources: the first is the report of the Electoral Commission on the conduct of the 1982 election; the second is the substantially revised commonwealth Electoral Act, which was amended following a joint select committee report of the federal parliament; and, the third was the policy of the Australian Labor Party in respect of elections, which was announced during the 1982 state election.

Again, without reading the whole of then attorney-general Mr Sumner's second reading, I will quote one more paragraph toward the end, wherein he states:

South Australia led the country with the electoral visitor program, and this new provision will similarly prove to be a model for the commonwealth and other states and will be welcomed by thousands of electors who, for a variety of legitimate reasons, cannot get to a polling booth, or polling booth in the right area, on polling day.

The Labor Party were the authors of this particular reform and patted themselves on their collective backs to say that they would lead the nation in relation to this reform, and to be fair these reforms have been followed in virtually every other jurisdiction, to allow greater freedom for people to be able to vote before an election.

There are many people who find it difficult and cumbersome to get to a polling booth on election day. There are many people who find it difficult and cumbersome to queue, potentially for an hour or so, on polling day to lodge their vote, as they might wish to do.

Those of us who worked at the recent state and federal elections will know that, in some polling booths, there were queues a hundred or couple of hundred metres long, lining up and delaying people for a hour or so in trying to get in to lodge their vote. The convenience of being able to provide some people, who might not be able to get to a polling booth or have some problem with voting on election day, with the ability to vote in the period 12 days prior to polling day, which is the current arrangement, is a sensible provision. It was consistent with Labor Party policy in the 1980s and it was introduced by a Labor government.

We have amended it over the years, but the essential principle has remained that we should make it as relatively easy as possible for people to vote at an election. This is essentially only allowing—in terms of the pre-polling centres, on the advice we have received—that the earliest that they could open would appear to be on the Monday, 12 days out from election day. So from our viewpoint there is no valid argument from the government as to why we should, in essence, breach what has been a longstanding principle, one introduced by a Labor government, a Labor attorney-general, Christopher Sumner, to allow this 12 days of pre-poll voting in an organised way to maximise the participation of voters in expressing their wishes at an election.

Therefore, obviously that package of amendments will be disputed. There will be opposing views as between the government and the opposition. What I am seeking to do, I think, for the benefit of minor party and Independent members, is to highlight perhaps, firstly, the areas where there are differences of opinion and then ultimately it is going to be up to the wise counsel of the minor parties and Independents to decide, in their judgement, as to the adequacy of the argument and determine ultimately a position in relation to it.

There are significant chunks of the amendments where there is agreement between the government and the opposition; therefore, minor parties and Independents will clearly still express their views, but they will do so in the knowledge that the government and the opposition have agreed on a significant number of the amendments that the government is going to move. But in this particular area—those three or four areas I have highlighted—we on the Liberal side earnestly ask the minor parties and Independents to consider the argument that Chris Sumner and the Labor Party offered back in the 1980s and onwards.

It has only been now, in the last 12 months, under Premier Weatherill, Attorney-General Rau and other ministers currently that all of a sudden they are tossing out the window 30 years of Labor history and support for what they lauded as one of the great reforms, because, one suspects, they see some partisan political advantage in being able to restrict the number of people who can lodge postal votes or vote in pre-polling centres prior to the election.

That should not be the guiding principle for reforms to the Electoral Act. The guiding principle should be fair and free elections and maximising the capacity for people to participate and to maximise the chance for those who might find it difficult to queue at length on a polling day, for up to an hour or so, in inclement weather, such as very hot weather, or whatever it might happen to be.

The government's position appears to be, 'Well, blow that. What we're going to do is say that you can't do as you currently do, in the 12 days, and find a convenient day in convenient weather and when you've got a helper or carer who can get you to one of these pre-poll voting centres prior to polling day. What we're going to do is try to make it as tough as we can and restrict it to as limited a time as possible.' It is five days, and, as I said, depending on what they decide to do with the Monday holiday, it might actually even be four days in terms of being able to participate.

That is not maximising the chance for voters to be able to participate and express their view, one way or another, as to whether they want the current government to continue or some other government to be installed or whether they want to express a view in favour of a third party candidate instead of either of the major party candidates. So it is a critical issue, and it will be the subject of quite extensive debate, I am sure, in the committee stages of the legislation.

In relation to the amendments that are listed currently in the name of the Hon. Andrew McLachlan, then, amendment 1 is the issue I have just canvassed. Amendment 2, again, is one of the issues I have just canvassed. Amendment 3, however, is a different issue. That is the issue that is simply one of penalties in relation to misleading advertising.

This is a simple issue. Again, there is a difference of opinion between the government and the opposition and the minor parties will need to determine it. The government is significantly increasing the penalties for misleading advertising provisions. We believe that the current penalties are relatively significant and should continue as they are. There has been no evidence as to the inadequacy of the current penalties but, again, that is a relatively simple issue which will ultimately be determined by the minor parties and Independents in the chamber.

There is a fourth amendment that is listed as [McLachlan-2] amendment No. 1, and that is in relation to allowing candidates to, in essence, participate on election day. I indicate at the outset that I have been advised that the government is likely to support that so there may well not be a difference of opinion in relation to it. This is essentially allowing what occurs at federal elections to occur in state elections. That is, in the federal elections each of us would have seen federal Labor and Liberal members or Labor and Liberal candidates on polling day handing out how-to-vote cards and being able to talk to voters, etc.

Under the state Electoral Act there is a provision which says that candidates are not allowed to personally solicit votes on election day. It does not stop Liberal and Labor members of parliament driving around all day and taking drinks and cakes and treats to their party workers and, if it happened that somebody said g'day to somebody who was going into a polling booth on the way it again does not prevent that sort of thing. However, in our judgement it does not seem to make too much sense. We think the federal provisions are reasonable and the amendment in the name of the Hon. Andrew McLachlan, which I will move, in essence seeks to reflect the federal provision in state legislation. As I said, my understanding is that that is likely to be agreed to by the government.

The next series of amendments are the ones being moved by the Hon. Mr Parnell. I will work backwards and do the easier one first. Amendment No. 3 is the one that I addressed some comments to earlier. It is the limitation on placing notices or signs within 100 metres of a pre-polling centre. The Hon. Mr Parnell is obviously opposing the government's moves there. We will be supporting the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendment. My understanding is that the government is likely to oppose that, for the reasons I outlined earlier and so, essentially, it will be a position for other minor parties and Independents to determine the ultimate effect of that particular amendment.

The next one is in relation to the nomination fees issue. The position arrived at when this was last debated, I understand, was that the nomination fees for upper and lower house candidates was significantly increased by the government to $3,000. There has been opposition to that from some people, and the Hon. Mr Parnell is moving an amendment to reduce that to $1,000 for Legislative Council candidates and $500 for House of Assembly candidates. The Liberal Party's position is that we will not be supporting that part of the amendment from the Hon. Mr Parnell in relation to a reduction in nomination fees for Legislative Council members. However, we have reserved our position for further discussion with the Hon. Mr Parnell and other parties in relation to our position on the nomination fee for House of Assembly candidates.

If there is no alternative agreement our default position as a party will be to stick with the $3,000 nomination fee but I, together with others I am sure, will be having discussions with the minor parties and Independents over the coming few days. The Liberal Party has some flexibility in relation to its ultimate position in relation to that part of that amendment.

I now turn to the amendments being moved by the Hon. Mr Darley. Amendment 1 from the Hon. Mr Darley offers candidates the opportunity to rectify mistakes made on nomination papers. We will be supporting that amendment. We suspect that the government may well support that, but it will be for them to indicate their position on that amendment.

In amendment No. 2, the Hon. Mr Darley wants to delete clause 14 of the bill, which removes the scope for Independents to have certain descriptive information, up to three words, printed on the ballot paper next to their name. In essence, the Hon. Mr Darley's position is to support the current compromise position which is 'Independent' plus three descriptor words. The government is seeking to remove the scope for any descriptor words being allowed after the word 'Independent' on the ballot paper. We will be supporting the position of the Hon. Mr Darley in relation to that amendment.

The position will therefore be determined by the other minor parties and Independents because our position is different to the government's, which is to remove the possibility of an Independent having a three-word descriptor—for example, 'Independent: Save the Murray' or 'Independent: Lower Taxes' or whatever it might happen to be. Our reason is that there was a long discussion about this when we last debated the bill and this was the compromise position arrived at then. Again, there has been no evidence to indicate a justification or reason why we should move away from the compromise we arrived at last time, so our position will be to support the Hon. Mr Darley's amendment.

The third amendment from the Hon. Mr Darley is a bit more complicated. Essentially, this provides that the Electoral Commissioner have powers similar to those that relate to misleading advertising during an election period in relation to dealing with what might be deemed to be misleading how-to-vote cards on election day. Clearly, there have been recent instances. I will not go into the gory detail, but there has been much criticism of the Labor Party for distributing certain misleading how-to-vote cards on election day.

Again, the Hon. Mr Darley will outline the reasons for his amendment during the committee stage. Our reading of the amendment indicates that, in essence, he is trying to provide greater powers for the Electoral Commissioner to deal with those circumstances in a similar way as the Electoral Commissioner is able to deal with misleading advertising at other times during the election period.

In principle, we agree with the amendment that has been moved by the Hon. Mr Darley. We will await any detailed feedback from the government on whether or not they deem that there is any technical deficiency in the amendment but, in the absence of that, we are highly likely to support the amendment. The question ultimately will be whether or not the government and other minor parties support that amendment, and I will leave it to the government to indicate their position.

The fourth amendment from the Hon. Mr Darley relates to greater regulation of robocalls. We would all be familiar with the power of the automated political phone call. It is probably an issue of some significance for the Hon. Mr Darley and, I suspect, his colleague, Senator Xenophon, at recent elections where robocalls have been used by the Labor Party to assert various attitudes or policies from the Hon. Mr Darley and Senator Xenophon on issues like penalty rates. I note that in some of those, the Leader of the Opposition, Steven Marshall, was similarly maligned by being lumped in with the Hon. Mr Darley and Senator Xenophon on the penalty rates issue at the time.

The endeavour from the Hon. Mr Darley is, in essence, to simply put an authorisation on a robocall so that, if anyone gets the robocall, they will at least know from whom it came. I am not sure whether that helps too much because, with some of them, I think there was a clear designation that they might have come from, at one stage, the union. I am not sure whether the Labor Party calls actually said 'authorised by Jay Weatherill', or by the Hon. Kyam Maher or whoever it was, but I suspect that most people would probably have guessed where they were coming from. I do not have a copy of the actual robocall to find out whether or not there was an identification of who was making the claim.

The Liberal Party has discussed this amendment with the government and its advisers, and we will be supporting an alternative version of the amendment. The Hon. Mr Darley's amendment has the authorisation at the start of the robocall. We will support a position that the government will table which will be that the authorisation is at the tail end of the robocall, which is a bit similar to a television advertisement or a radio advertisement. You get the spiel from the political party or the candidate and then it says, 'Written and authorised by Kyam Maher on behalf of the state Labor Party,' or whatever it might happen to be. A similar requirement for a political automated call from our viewpoint is supportable, and the government will be moving an amendment along those lines. The principle is the same, but the amendment will be slightly different.

The fifth issue that the Hon. Mr Darley is dealing with is an endeavour to provide changes to the definition of 'political expenditure'. This is a critical part of the public funding arrangements. Put simply, the Liberal Party supports the principle of what the Hon. Mr Darley is putting, but we will be supporting an alternative solution to greater clarity on what political expenditure is, which is to be moved by the government.

It will be in two parts. Part of it will be a legislative change, which we will need to approve this week with the bill. The second part will be that the bill, if it is passed, will provide for greater freedom for regulations to define political expenditure. Of course, they will be disallowable, so if the Hon. Mr Darley and others are unhappy with that, they will be able to move for disallowance at some subsequent stage. They are still being drafted and I have not yet seen a final concluded copy of those.

The model that certainly we have looked at, and some others have looked at, is the New South Wales legislation which includes a very long list of things that are included in political expenditure and then an even longer list of things that are not included in political expenditure. It seeks to provide greater clarity to candidates in political parties and the Electoral Commissioner on what is in and what is out.

The simple reality is that, in terms of the New South Wales list of ins and outs and whatever is finally agreed in South Australia to be in and out, it is impossible for it all to be black and white. There will continue to be areas of grey that will need to be determined by the Electoral Commissioner, and the political parties and candidates will just have to live with the decisions that the Electoral Commissioner makes, or their own legal advice provides to them, as to what is in and what is out of political expenditure.

This is an interesting segue into the public funding provisions. I will make some introductory comments before addressing the detail of some of the amendments in the public funding area. When this was first negotiated on our behalf by the former member for Davenport, Iain Evans, and on the government's behalf by the Attorney-General, John Rau, it was their best endeavours to come up with a public funding scheme that had an appropriate level of taxpayer-funded support through public funding, the offset being an appropriate level of disclosure and caps on political expenditure, which were new elements.

I am advised by both of those gentlemen that their intention was to not have anything as convoluted, complicated and complex as the New South Wales public funding model. They had both been to New South Wales and spoken to practitioners in New South Wales who said that it was almost impossible to understand and comply with. They came back with a clear goal to have a simpler model.

Having been involved now in the discussions with the Attorney-General, whatever hat we each wear after March 2018, it is my clear view that whoever is in government will need to conduct a broad, comprehensive review of the public funding provisions of the Electoral Act, because it is complicated; it is impossible to answer some of the questions. All you can do is your best endeavours to try to understand what is meant by this particular provision and what is meant by that, or understand what the practical implications are of some of the changes, the impacts on modern day campaigning in relation to social media advertising, boosting a Facebook post, boosting Twitter coverage, or whatever it might happen to be.

All those things were never complicated four, eight, 12 or 16 years ago, when we looked at electoral advertising and things like that. We are trying to ensure that the legislation, which has been tweaked over the years and then undergone a significant change a few years ago, covers all the circumstances of modern day campaigning.

If you overlay that with the difficult questions of disclosures, who has to disclose what and when and political expenditure caps, all those sorts of things are extraordinarily complicated. In the Liberal Party's case, we have somewhere between 130 and 150 subunits, branches, SECs and FECs that are fiercely independent and protective of their capacity to influence what goes on in their area. We think we have got to the stage where the legislation says you cannot spend anything on political expenditure out of those particular accounts that you have, and you can only transfer money into the one state-campaign account, and whatever goes in and out of that is what has to be processed and disclosed, etc. We have to disclose anything that is donated to the subunits, but in terms of spending, it is the money that can only be spent out of the one state campaign account.

If you have all of those complicated things, how do you account for membership fees, sustentation fees from Labor Party unions and associated entities, and MPs' levy accounts? I suspect it is only the major parties that have them. I am not sure whether the minor parties have MP levy accounts. How do you account for those?

There are issues like term deposits and other things like that. The Labor Party and the Liberal Party both run admin accounts, a federal campaign account and a state campaign account. Where are the dividing lines between all of those? There are hundreds and hundreds of questions that were never contemplated at the time that it was drafted, and if the questions were never contemplated, the answers were not contemplated either.

Whoever is in government after March 2018, hopefully with no responsible officer leading the parties being in gaol as a result of having committed an offence but with the experience of the election as to how it has gone, a comprehensive review will need to be done, in particular of the public funding provisions of the Electoral Act. Good luck to whoever has to do that.

I understand that some of these amendments are being discussed with the minor parties and Independents today and possibly tomorrow. In relation to the public funding provisions, one of the key ones is an issue that was canvassed by the amendment from the Hon. Mr Darley; namely, what is and what is not political expenditure. The opposition is going to broadly support an amendment from the government which, in essence, will give a little greater clarity in the legislation on what political expenditure is, but allows for even greater clarity provided by way of a regulation or set of regulations in the not-too-distant future.

I can indicate at this stage of the drafting and the regulations that the Liberal Party accepts—and we think that is the position of the government—that we have a capped expenditure period that starts on 1 July, which is the critical date coming up as to why we have to pass this bill. From 1 July through to just after the election, there are limits on the amount of money that you can spend as individuals, in particular areas, but also overall as a party. Therefore, issues of what is and is not included in the capped expenditure period are important.

For example, if a candidate buys 1,000 corflutes in June this year before the start of the capped expenditure period, and will use a small number of those in the period leading up to the election but will use the vast bulk of them in the election period, do all of those costs have to be included in the capped expenditure period? We think the answer to that, in common-sense terms, should be yes. That is, it should not be a mechanism for avoidance by preloading a significant expenditure just prior to the start of the capped expenditure period. That seems black and white, but the issue is raised of what happens with Attorney-General Rau, who, for example, re-contests the seat of Enfield, and may or may not have had—he probably did not, in a safe seat—1,000 corflutes from March 2014.

He thinks that he is still as handsome as he was in March 2014 and wants to reuse the A-frames and 1,000 corflutes from March 2014 for March 2018. It is not an unreasonable proposition. That was not something that was done with the intention of subverting the capped expenditure period: it was something that was done back in March 2014. So, the intention of what the lawyers are slogging away at, at the moment, is to try to distinguish between what, at one end of the continuum, we think, in common-sense terms, is a clear attempt to get around the provisions of the capped expenditure period, but on the other end of the continuum is a very reasonable proposition that someone who has already spent the money and wants to reuse old materials should be allowed to do so. That is at both ends of the continuum, but there is any number of options that occur in between.

The lawyers are struggling to try to come up with something which, in essence, distinguishes between them. For example, if the Labor Party or the Liberal Party had preselected a candidate back in September last year, which, in a lot of election periods, may or may not have been the case—it was delayed this time because of the court hearings on the redistribution—it has not been uncommon for people to get business cards, stationery and their introductory candidate leaflets for up to 18 months before, or 16 or 17 months for people who are preselected.

Again, those sorts of things were not being done then to subvert the capped expenditure period. How far back do you go? That is with the candidate. Clearly, sitting members have not only used their global expenditure, which is clearly outside the provisions of the capped expenditure period, but if the Labor Party or the Liberal Party has used expenditure on advertising a candidate—an MP, for example—for the first three years after an election, should that be part of the capped expenditure cost? We think that in common-sense terms it should not be but, again, we are trying to get the lawyers to distinguish how we do that.

There are elements in the drafting of the primary reason for something to try to get over that particular issue, and there are going to be elements of perhaps a cut-off point, which may or may not be around 1 May or something like that. They are the sorts of issues that are being discussed. As I said, the slightly easier task will probably be what we agree to in the legislative change, then there will be the more difficult task of what is in and out in terms of the regulations as to what is political expenditure.

Our position is that we have, we hope with as much common sense as we can muster, had sensible discussions with the government to try to meet the purposes of the legislation and agree on some changes to the act, but different to the ones the Hon. Mr Darley has on political expenditure and with greater detail in terms of the regulations. That will be the key issue. There are some other particular provisions that we have amendments on as well, some of which are minor and technical.

There is a requirement under the legislation for each candidate in a registered political party to have a state campaign account. We are told that does not make much sense at all for the Labor Party. We understand that the Labor Party has a centralised, regimented system of one campaign account, so allowances are being made for that by way of a technical amendment to which we have no opposition from the Liberal Party viewpoint. That will be agreed.

There is a complicated issue in relation to the interaction of the disclosure regimes of political parties under the federal legislation and under the state legislation. There is an agreed amendment to section 130C, one version of which I think was previously tabled by the Minister for Police or the government minister in charge of the bill some time ago. There is a new version of that amendment to be tabled, which has been agreed between the government and the opposition, to clarify the reporting requirements.

That amendment will ensure that the reporting requirements of the state Electoral Act are not subverted by the federal electoral act requirements or the other way around. One does not override the other, that is, it is made quite clear that the federal act applies to certain circumstances and the state act applies to other circumstances. Section 130C is a broad endeavour to try to clarify these state and federal electoral act issues.

There is a technical issue in relation to the current drafting, which says in essence that all gifts must be paid into the state campaign account. I am not sure about the other parties, but certainly from the Labor Party and the Liberal Party viewpoint there are some people who will donate to a party and say—it is easier for me to put this in the context of the state Labor Party—'We don't like Jay Weatherill at all. We are not prepared to put any money into re-electing Jay Weatherill in the state campaign account, but we are Labor people and we want to put money into Bill Shorten being elected, so we're prepared to put money into a federal campaign account.'

That is not an unreasonable position. All we are seeking to do here is to govern what happens in terms of state campaigns and state elections. Political parties run state campaigns and federal campaigns and, as long as we can be clear about the distinctions there, the provision that is there, which technically says that any donation to a party has to go into the state campaign account, does not make much sense in our view. If someone wants to donate solely to a federal campaign account for the benefit of a federal leader and a federal campaign and does not want to have anything to do with the state campaign, then there is nothing wrong with that and the legislation should allow for that.

So, there is a technical amendment in relation to section 130L and we will be agreeing to that particular amendment as well. There are further amendments to section 130Y, which are consequential on some of the changes to the definition of a capped expenditure period that will be made in an earlier amendment. We will be supporting those particular amendments. There are amendments to section 130Z of the Electoral Act, the public funding provisions.

Political parties have to negotiate cap agreements under this legislation with their own party candidates, which is a complicated part. So, there has to be an agreement between the party secretary and the candidate. If a particular candidate has a very strong view about how much money should be spent in their particular election to ensure their re-election and if agreement cannot be reached between the candidate and the party secretary, there is a default position in the legislation.

The candidate is entitled to have an expenditure cap of $40,000. With modern campaigning, party secretaries might take a view that that is a safe seat and they do not want to waste $40,000 in that seat. They might only want to spend $20,000 in that seat and up to $100,000 on a marginal seat, to sandbag a marginal seat or to win a seat from the opposing party. If you cannot reach an agreement with your own candidate, there is this default position.

This issue of agreements and when they have to be lodged is an interesting new innovation in the legislation. I am sure former party secretaries sitting on the Labor front bench will reach back into their kitbags of past experiences knowing that this is obviously a challenge for current state directors and party secretaries in terms of negotiating each of those. In essence, the amendment says that any cap agreement between a party and a candidate needs to provided to the Electoral Commissioner within eight days of polling day; that is, the Friday a week before polling day. The current act requires much earlier advice on the cap agreements.

Again, Labor members and Liberal members will be familiar with this. The Labor system is a bit more controlled and regimented than we are. However, we understand that if, for example, a party secretary or a campaign committee makes a decision that, on the basis of research in the middle or early part of the campaign, they are writing off a seat—either they are going to win it easily or they don't want to waste any more money in this particular seat and they want to transfer resources elsewhere—in the past, without this whole notion of cap agreement, they did not have any problem at all. They just transferred resources from one seat to another. They would pull everybody out of one particular seat and put them all into another seat to try to sandbag that particular seat.

That happens in both political parties. Again, it is not an unreasonable proposition, but the current drafting of the legislation makes that very difficult. These cap agreements, in much earlier stages, had to be filed with the Electoral Commissioner. There is little purpose to that, other than prurient interest, I guess. There is no real disclosure issue.

Ultimately, the issues are whether donations are disclosed, whether expenditure caps are adhered to and whether the law has been upheld. Those are the key things that we are meant to determine in the legislation. The issue of how political parties manage their negotiations with their candidates and their caps with candidates are not really an issue that need to be part of the public debate until later in the process.

In essence, the amendments will say that up to eight days prior will be the time period when directors and state secretaries will have to lodge their cap agreements with the Electoral Commissioner. They will be there so that the Electoral Commissioner will be able to check those, together with overall expenditure caps as well. The legislation will also make it clear that the Electoral Commissioner cannot publish that agreement until after the end of the capped expenditure period. So, ultimately, there will be disclosure of what the cap agreements were with the individual parties and candidates.

I am sure Labor members will be very interested in what the Liberal Party has done and the Liberal Party will be very interested in what the Labor Party has done, but that will be something that will be part of the analysis post the election day and not be something that is part of the argy-bargy during the election period. Again, there is nothing in the current legislation that ensures that that is the case. Again, we think that is an entirely reasonable proposition, frankly, and there is no pressing need for that sort of detail to be in the public arena prior to election day.

There are some technical amendments in relation to the administrative burden on state secretaries and directors in relation to providing nil returns for candidates and groups under section 130Z(1)(f)—I will not go into the details of those as they are quite technical and no major issue. They are essentially the broad issues that are amendments to the public funding provisions, which will be agreed between the government and the opposition. There will be an agreed proposition in relation to the public funding provisions.

However, the government is also moving some amendments in the non-public funding areas, and I want to address, finally, some comments in relation to those amendments. There is a first technical amendment to clause 2, which will provide for an earlier operating date of this particular bill. That will be the date of assent and not a later date fixed by proclamation: that is technical and we will support that.

The government will move amendments to a number of clauses to prevent political parties registering a name that comprises the word 'independent' as part of their registered political party name, and we will be supporting those. That does not stop Independents, clearly, being independent, say, the Murray candidate or whoever it is, but it will stop a political party registering with the word 'independent' as part of the party's name.

There is a consequential amendment the government will move to its restricting pre-poll voting until five days before the polling day. We have already indicated that we will oppose that restriction on five days, so our position is clear on that.

There is, finally, an amendment from the government that will seek to allow political parties and others to start campaigning by erecting posters from 5pm. on the day before the issue of the writs. This game that is played about when you erect posters at state and federal elections: it is meant to happen on the day the writs are issued, so people are up poles in the middle of the night. Some people are up poles the day before, or whatever it might happen to be.

The government is taking the view that we should allow, in the state Electoral Act, people to start climbing poles if they want and putting up posters at 5pm. on the day before the issue of the writs, which the government advises, in essence, will be Friday 5pm. Our position is that we are supportive of that notion. Whether that will mean that people will then start climbing poles earlier in the day, prior to 5 o'clock, to get first mover advantage or not, I am not sure. It seems a reasonable proposition from the government, and the Liberal Party has indicated its willingness to support that particular amendment.

I apologise for the bits and piecey nature of the contribution I have made, but I thought it worthwhile to at least outline broadly our position on the bill because we have to resolve it by Thursday. So, at least third parties, minor parties and Independents will be aware that there are a number of provisions where the government and opposition agree but that there is a significant number of amendments where there is a disagreement and, ultimately, it will be a decision for the minor parties and the Independents.

I indicate on behalf of the Liberal Party that, having outlined my position now, if there is further clarification required about our position on any of the amendments, I am available for discussions over the next day or so with members of the chamber so that I can provide clarification as to the reasons why we have adopted a position and why we might be either opposing or supporting a particular government amendment. With that, I indicate my support for the second reading of the legislation.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.T. Ngo.