Bills

Electoral (Electronic Documents and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 October 2021.)

The Hon. C. BONAROS (16:51): I rise to speak on the Electoral (Electronic Documents and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2021. At the outset, I again express SA-Best's extreme disappointment and frustration that the government has waited until the eleventh hour to introduce this bill and then expects us to rush through it. We know that the government has had over 2½ years to bring this bill into the parliament and has not done so until now, the dying days of this session of parliament.

Can I say, in the Attorney's defence perhaps, she did move a very similar bill late last year, which would have given us ample opportunity to consider these issues had it not been for taking advantage of the subject matter at hand and slipping in optional preferential voting, which ultimately resulted in the entire bill failing, and for very good reason. I do give the Attorney 10 out of 10 for persistence in bringing forward some components of that bill, along with a couple of new provisions in this bill so late in the day, and I think that is more a reflection of what the Electoral Commission would like to see done.

The Electoral Commission's election report contains 16 recommendations. This report was received a full year before COVID hit and, as I have already said, it was received by the government over 2½ years ago. Optional preferential voting, for obvious reasons, was not one of those recommendations, so here we are. The government has had at its disposal an entire department to act on the 16 recommendations, but still here we are.

The bill has widespread and significant ramifications for South Australians and democracy itself. I know I speak for many of my colleagues here and in the other place when I say it is extraordinarily tempting to scuttle this bill. We have chosen not to do this because we appreciate the Electoral Commission has gone to some length to try to get some of its recommendations implemented before the next election, and those recommendations are not there to benefit us but are there to benefit democracy. As the Electoral Commission has highlighted to me in briefings and in an open letter from the commissioner to all members, it not only has COVID to contend with but also a possible federal election that may clash with our election early next year.

Some of the provisions in the bill appear sensible, streamlining administrative improvements that will assist and permit more voters to exercise their democratic right to cast their vote. Some are simply a modernisation of processes, such as making information and announcements available on websites rather than publishing in hard copy newspapers. Others deal with candidates being able to electronically upload documents, such as their enrolment application.

Most, but not all, of the provisions in this bill are recommendations from that report that I referred to, but the bill does not address at least four of those recommendations, some of which are very significant. For example, recommendation 1, which advocates for eligible voters to enrol up to and on polling day, is not in this bill. I understand Labor has filed an amendment that does provide for that to occur to some degree.

Recommendation 8, calling for robust and secure systems for the electronic delivery and return of ballot papers, is nowhere to be found in this bill. That said, I hope it is progressed in the next parliament, as we do need to harness technology to facilitate secure and accessible voting for all.

Early voting centres are something of a double-edged sword, which I think provide only a partial solution in these COVID-19 times but are also somewhat critical in these COVID-19 times. Under this proposal, the public will be able to attend booths in lower numbers over a longer period of time, but they are still having to physically turn up, handle pens and papers, and have contact with staff and other voters.

The reality is, I think none of us can predict what is going to happen next month, let alone next March, when it comes to COVID-19. There are, of course, some provisions which may be viewed as disadvantages to voters voting in the weeks leading up to an election. Sometimes issues emerge or arise right up until election day, issues that may very well sway predominantly swinging voters.

Other provisions, such as access to telephone voting, have arisen via consultation with the commission, which has conducted consultation with relevant representatives, such as blind and vision-impaired electors. There are amendments by the opposition that seek to include some additional safeguards for telephone voting and to expand the disabilities that would make someone eligible for telephone voting. That is something we will consider during the committee stage debate.

The government has some concerns, I understand, with the Labor amendments. Again, we will canvass that during the committee stage debate, but I think, generally, if I can take anything from the briefing with the commission it is that, yes, we are at the pointy end of business and if these changes do not come in they are going to have a heck of a time trying to implement them in time for the election.

Of course, all that could be fixed if the government allocated more resources to the Electoral Commission and made their job a lot easier. The other reason, and probably the more compelling reason, given by the Electoral Commission and the commissioner is the uncertainty that exists around COVID-19 and what March next year will look like, even without a federal election or potential federal election.

There are concerns, obviously very contentious provisions, around the closing of the rolls two days after the issuing of writs instead of the current six days. This could be seen as disenfranchising young and first-time voters, who could miss the two-day cut-off. I think that is something that we will flesh out further during the committee stage debate of this bill.

Regarding the misleading advertising complaints, changes to SACAT, in principle we do support that proposal, if only because we saw what a mess it was trying to deal with misleading and deceptive advertising during the last campaign. In fact, the results of some of those complaints were being handed out to political parties well after the election had been finalised and certainly well after the damage of some of those advertisements had been done.

So that is an amendment that I am keen to explore during the committee stage in the hope that SACAT may be better placed to respond to these complaints in a much more timely and independent manner. That is not a suggestion that ECSA is not independent, but I think it is fair to say that we all know that ECSA's time is consumed by trying to administer an election, and having them also deal with complaints simply is not working.

I have an amendment to this bill that deals with robocalls. My view is these calls are nothing but nuisance calls. I think sometimes their effectiveness can be questionable, but they are widely used. I think the community at large would prefer that they do not get these robocalls. Again, we will have a lot more to say about that during the committee stage debate of the bill.

There is an amendment by the Hon. Robert Simms that seeks to lower the eligible voting age to 16. Again, this is something I am happy to speak to further during the committee stage debate. It is not something we will be supporting in principle but is certainly something that we are willing to canvass during the committee stage. With those words, I indicate that we are happy to proceed with the second reading of this bill and look forward to canvassing all those issues I have just outlined during that debate.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. D.G.E. Hood.