Bills

Electoral (Electronic Documents and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 26.

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

Amendment No 12 [Maher–1]—

Page 8, after line 34 [clause 26, after subclause (2)]—Insert:

(2a) Section 77(2)(b)—delete ‘12’ and substitute ‘7’

We adjourned before we got to the substantive new area of amendments in this bill. This is one I canvassed briefly in some remarks at clause 1. There was an earlier amendment about promoting polling on election day, which retains the status quo. This one actually makes an amendment to the Electoral Act in terms of early voting.

What this seeks to do, as I outlined very briefly at clause 1, is rather than 12 days for early voting—that is the Monday almost two weeks before the election day—this seeks to have early voting open for seven days. That is in effect to give one of every day of the week for people to vote. Early voting would start before the election and have one of every day to be able to vote, so six days of pre-poll and election day itself.

I gave reasons for this earlier. It is our view that it is desirable that people vote on election day. Some of the reasons I outlined before are the ability for voters to have all information to the greatest extent possible before they vote on election day. We do know that policies continue to be released, events continue to unfold right up to election day, and the earlier people vote the less able they are to consume the fullness of information and make that informed choice.

I also went through the fact that having more people vote on election day has served Australian elections very well in the past. It is almost a celebration of our combined democracy and civic duty to have that one day where we have elections. It is also a practical thing. I have bemoaned in the past the fact that in some areas, like the APY lands, you could have voting on a two-hour block six or seven days before an election for voters who vote at some of the lowest rates in the country.

I have often contended that, if in the APY lands, in booths that have some hundred votes each in the six main communities, you had a polling booth open on the day of the election you would get a significantly higher turnout; that is, rather than only being able to vote for a couple of hours on a Tuesday before the election. If it was known that you could vote between 9am and 6pm on the actual day of the election, it would increase turnout.

Encouraging as much as possible but also respecting the fact that there will be genuine reasons to vote early I think is good for our democracy. I note, as I said earlier, that there are reasons you would want to have more availability for voting, and that is highlighted at the next election, given the circumstances we face in the COVID pandemic.

I do not agree with the contention that there is only one way to resolve this, and that is to try to have more early voting. I would respectfully contend that resources could be used to have more polling booths on election day, for example. It stands to reason that, if you triple the amount of polling booths, each polling booth potentially would have only a third of the amount of voters.

I think there are other ways to provide for the challenges that we will face in a COVID act, and then there are the actual practical considerations of the ability to staff polling booths for the major parties that will find it easier, but for minor parties if, as the Electoral Commissioner has outlined in estimates, there are 47 pre-poll booths—and I think there was only one per three or four electorates in previous elections—for the whole of the 12 days, that dual combination of having three or four times as many pre-poll booths, as well as being open for the whole 12 days, will stretch all parties, quite frankly, very thin on the ground in terms of being able to provide the services that are usually provided to voters entering a polling booth.

We do not think, in terms of those practical issues, it is particularly feasible to have a combination of both the number of days we usually have as well as having 47 pre-poll booths, so we are moving the amendment to take it back from the current 12 days to seven days of pre-poll.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government, I think as we indicated earlier, is opposing this particular amendment. The Electoral Commissioner's election report noted the very significant increases in demand for pre-poll voting in recent years, and this demand is expected to continue. Almost four years ago, evidently the percentage of pre-poll voting was a bit over 10 per cent or 11 per cent or something. I think in some other jurisdictions in the last three to four years it has been, and I will stand corrected on this, as high as 30 per cent or 40 per cent of the total vote being pre-poll.

I must admit, when I first started out in parliament, I very much subscribed to the view that the Hon. Mr Maher has just subscribed to. But he is a very conservative person; he does not change those views. I am a person prepared to listen to contemporary opinion and thought processes and move with the times. Some are stuck in the mud of the past in terms of opinion, but some of us are prepared to listen to what people actually—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: What did you say in the VAD debate? 'As the world changes around me, I don't change my views.'

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The world has moved on. With some things, I rue the fact that things have moved on, but the world has changed and it is inevitable. I think, with or without changes, we are going to see more and more people take the convenience. Put aside COVID, which I will address in a moment, because the recent trends have been both before COVID and during COVID, when we have seen big increases in the number of pre-poll voting. I think people just want the convenience of being able to vote.

There may well be people who are playing sport on Saturdays or they may all be hardworking shoppies union people working in retail outlets on Saturday or doing shift work in the variety of jobs that are now required on weekends and on Saturdays in particular. It is just inevitable that people seek convenience in much of what they do in their lives. Election day is exactly the same. We can rail against it and say, 'We are going to corral you all in and force you all to vote on one particular day,' but it is not going to work. People are demanding the capacity to have greater flexibility in terms of when they vote, when they might drop in.

We are seeing the challenges in relation to vaccinations at the moment. We are now moving mobile vaccination centres to where people are, whether it is in the Myer shopping centre or wherever you happen to be, to try to provide the convenience of being able to get your jab. In relation to voting, it is the same thing: the convenience. The Electoral Commissioner is recognising that, so rather than having a small number of pre-poll outlets, they are looking at, as I understand it, having one in every electorate. I think they are looking at having a significant increase, and I think it might be as much as one in every electorate, so that people who want to pre-poll vote can do that, rather than having to be corralled into half a dozen or a dozen major regional centres or suburban centres or the like.

Members can fight against the tide of greater convenience and flexibility for people, but it is inevitable. People want that flexibility. Many of them—not all of them—are quite happy to have formed a view about a government or a member as to whether they want them or not over four years, and what is going happen in the last two or three weeks, for many of them, is not going to influence them.

For some it might, but the reality is, even with our existing laws, more and more people are going to avail themselves of early voting. It means they do not have to go to a polling booth and queue up on a Saturday, because you never know what time of day you can guarantee that there will not be a lengthy queue and you are going to be harangued by hundreds of election workers for all the major parties, at least if you do it at one of these polling centres during the two or three weeks before the election.

The Hon. Mr Maher laments the fact that it is going to be harder to be able to mobilise people for that. Some of the people are probably quite relieved about that. It means they will get into their polling booth without being molested by dozens of polling workers from all sorts of—not just political parties, but these days on election day you have all sorts of other interest groups, whether it be unions or activist groups or the others, who are all wanting to influence voters on that particular day.

Even though they do not have their own candidate, they have someone they do not like or they do like, and they are campaigning for that particular person. That will still occur on election day, but increasingly there will be fewer people who are going to be voting on election day. They will be taking advantage of it earlier. I think that is a general comment about the world moving on. As I said, members can rail against that and try to fight against the tide of public opinion, but that is the inevitable reality.

We have the overlay this time of COVID. There is no doubting that electoral commissions around Australia and around the world, I suspect, are having to acknowledge that they are going to have to do much more in terms of how to actually manage safely an election voting period. They do see the opportunity for early voting as being an important element of that for a COVID impacted election, as I have outlined earlier, being able to spread more people out over a longer period of time in a number of different centres.

If we see a significant increase in the number of people who have voted before election day, then that will mean fewer people crowding into polling booths on election day. For all that, the government view is it make sense to provide for the added convenience and flexibility that more and more South Australian voters are demanding.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: To be honest, the Greens can see arguments on both sides of this debate. I must confess to being a bit of a traditionalist when it comes to voting. I do enjoy the excitement of election day.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Democracy sausages.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The democracy sausage, absolutely. However, I am also persuaded by the argument that the honourable Treasurer has put that, in the middle of the pandemic, now was not the time to reduce the number of days available for pre-poll voting. Particularly in the context of a global pandemic, people will want to avail themselves of that opportunity. That is not to say that there will not be potential implications for political parties in terms of being able to staff booths.

That said, the overriding consideration should be what is in the best interests of the voter and what we can we do to assist them and encourage people to vote during a challenging period. On that basis, we are inclined to support the existing regime. Do not get too used to us being in agreement, Treasurer, but on this occasion we are supporting your position.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: We will be supporting the opposition, for the reasons I have already outlined.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will not be supporting the amendment.

Ayes 9

Noes 10

Majority 1

Clauses 27 and 28 passed.

Clause 29.

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

Amendment No 13 [Maher–1]—

Page 10, after line 4 [clause 29, after subclause (5)]—Insert:

(5a) Section 84A—after subsection (2) insert:

(2a) Regulations relating to an assisted voting method that involves telephone voting must at least provide for the method to include the following requirements:

(a) a witness who listens to the entire telephone communication between a prescribed elector voting using the method and the officer taking the vote and ensures that—

(i) the prescribed elector's vote is accurately marked by the officer in the presence of the witness; and

(ii) the officer then reads the marked vote aloud to the prescribed elector; and

(iii) the prescribed elector confirms that their vote has been accurately marked or, if the prescribed elector seeks to amend their vote, the officer accurately marks the amendments and reads the amended marked vote aloud to the prescribed elector;

(b) a witness who performs the functions referred to in paragraph (a) in relation to an assisted vote—

(i) records a unique identifier number (being a number provided to the prescribed elector in relation to their assisted vote) on the declaration envelope into which the vote is to be placed; and

(ii) signs the declaration envelope; and

(iii) folds the ballot paper and seals it inside the declaration envelope.

(2b) Regulations made under section 84A(2)(f) cannot disapply or modify the operation of subsection (2a) in relation to an assisted voting method that involves telephone voting.

This amendment spells out the requirements for telephone voting as outlined by the Attorney-General herself. As a number of members have raised in both chambers at the second reading, there are concerns about maintaining the integrity of voting with telephone voting. This amendment has simply sought to put the pro tem Attorney-General's words into legislation. I anticipate that regulations about this would be very similar to what this amendment actually puts in legislation. But when it comes to the integrity of something as sacrosanct as the integrity of voting, we feel it is important to be spelt out in the legislation and not left for regulation.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government is opposing the amendment. The amendment to put the process of telephone-assisted voting into the act, I am advised from the government's viewpoint, is unnecessarily prescriptive. The process for telephone voting may evolve over time as technology changes and it will be important to have the flexibility to update processes and regulations. The government has consulted with the Electoral Commission in preparing regulations. I am advised that a draft regulation setting out the proposed process has been circulated to members for their consideration.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The Greens are supportive of the Labor Party amendment. I indicate also that we will be supporting the subsequent amendment as well that deals with some similar issues. It strikes me as quite odd that we would not provide this level of clarity in the legislation when we are talking about something as important as the information that is provided to a voter, particularly in relation to voting over the telephone. It strikes us in the Greens as being very important that that is actually enshrined in legislation rather than being left to the discretion of the government of the day.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: We will be supporting the amendment.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 14 [Maher–1]—

Page 10, lines 6 and 7 [clause 29(6), inserted definition of prescribed elector]—Delete the definition of prescribed elector and substitute:

prescribed elector means—

(a) a sight-impaired elector; or

(b) an elector with a disability within the meaning of the Disability Inclusion Act 2018 (other than sight-impairment); or

(d) any other elector, or class of elector, specified for the purposes of this definition in a direction under section 25 of the Emergency Management Act 2004.

This is on the same topic of telephone voting. This amendment spells out which electors are eligible for telephone voting, rather than leaving it to the regulations.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes the amendment. This amendment does not allow for categories of prescribed electors to be prescribed by regulation. It does not include overseas electors. One of the reasons for telephone-assisted voting is to provide an option for overseas electors who struggle to return their ballots in time to be counted. The government considers that the flexibility to add or remove categories of electors by regulation is a key part of the workability of telephone-assisted voting, especially in relation to ensuring COVID-safe elections.

The importance of the telephone-assisted voting for overseas electors and other categories of electors is highlighted in the Electoral Commissioner's open letter to members, as I understand it, dated 25 October 2021. I quote:

It was proposed that telephone voting be a suitable alternative for electors who were overseas and unlikely to be able to receive and return a postal vote and to those who might find themselves affected by risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. The latter would be electors unable to attend to vote where they are resident in a health or care facility with significant risks that might prohibit the traditional visits by electoral officers, and those who may be subject to a direction to isolate or quarantine for a period that would preclude them from attending to vote.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 15 [Maher–1]—

Page 10, after line 7—Insert:

(7) Section 84—after subsection (4) insert:

(5) For the purposes of paragraph (b) of the definition of prescribed elector in subsection (4), the regulations may declare that a reference to a disability in that paragraph—

(a) will be taken to include a disability of a kind prescribed by the regulations; and

(b) will be taken not to include a disability of a kind prescribed by the regulations.

This amendment is related to the last amendment to do with electors eligible for telephone voting.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 30 and 31 passed.

Clause 32.

The CHAIR: We now move to amendment No. 4 [Simms-1], which relates to clause 32, page 10, after line 23.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Mr Chair, that is a consequential amendment. We are not progressing with that.

Clause passed.

Clause 33.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 11, lines 15 and 16 [clause 33(2), inserted subsection (4)]—Delete ‘this Act and the requirements prescribed by the regulations’ and substitute ‘this section and the other relevant provisions of this Act’

The government has consulted with the Electoral Commission and had regard to the New Zealand electoral scheme. The government originally intended to put the detail of early counting processes and safeguards into regulations. However, to provide additional certainty about the early counting process, these provisions will now be included in the Electoral Act rather than the regulations.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am very pleased to rise and offer support for government amendment No. 1 and the subsequent government amendment No. 2. I can indicate that, when we get there, I will not be moving my amendment No. 19 [Maher-1] as we had planned. I am very pleased that the government has taken on board what were opposition amendments. We are happy to support the government amendments to put into legislation what we think are pretty important safeguards.

It is to do with the pre-poll scrutiny. I am pleased they have been put into legislation rather than left for regulation. These were, I know, important ones. I can remember being at a briefing with the Electoral Commissioner talking about this. Under changes to the act, it allows for counting of some votes to start earlier than when the polls close.

Concerns were raised at the briefing about the absolute need for results that may be being viewed earlier not to be able to be in any way leaked out—the idea that you could possibly have some early results before other polls closed. We see it in US elections where polling closes earlier on the east coast than the west coast and you have some idea of where you are tracking by virtue of polling results.

You see it to some extent in federal elections, between the eastern and western coasts as well. We would not want a situation where voters may be discouraged from voting because they think there is a foregone conclusion of an election. So we are very pleased the government has taken up what was in our amendment No. 19 and put it into legislation, and we are happy to support amendments Nos 1 and 2 from the Treasurer.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: We have a unity ticket, I think, Chair, because the Greens are also supportive of this amendment. We thank the government for putting it forward. We agree with the comments made by the Hon. Kyam Maher on behalf of the Labor Party that it is important to enshrine these principles in legislation.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: For the record, I indicate SA-Best's support for the amendments also.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 11, after line 16 [clause 33(2), after inserted subsection (4)]—Insert:

(5) In connection with section 89(4), the following requirements apply in relation to the scrutiny of ordinary votes taken at a pre-polling booth before polling day undertaken before the close of poll:

(a) the scrutiny is to be conducted in 1 or more areas determined by the Electoral Commissioner (restricted areas);

(b) the Electoral Commissioner must appoint an officer as a responsible officer for a restricted area;

(c) a person must not enter a restricted area before the close of poll unless—

(i) the responsible officer grants the person permission to enter the restricted area, which may be subject to conditions determined by the responsible officer; and

(ii) the person gives the responsible officer an undertaking not to leave the restricted area before the close of poll;

(d) a person must leave a restricted area on being required to do so by the responsible officer for the restricted area;

(e) a person must not enter a restricted area before the close of poll if the person is in possession of a device that enables information to be conveyed to a person or machine outside the restricted area;

(f) a person in possession of a device of a kind referred to in paragraph (e) in a restricted area before the close of poll must surrender the device on being required to do so by the responsible officer for the restricted area and the responsible officer may retain the device until the close of poll;

(g) a person who is or has been in a restricted area must not, before the close of poll, disclose to any person outside the restricted area any information relating to the scrutiny of votes (including the counting of votes) undertaken before the close of poll.

(6) A person who contravenes or fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (5)(c) to (g) is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $5,000.

(7) A person who contravenes or fails to comply with an undertaking made, or a condition of a permission granted, under subsection (5)(c) is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $5,000.

(8) The Electoral Commissioner may grant a person an exemption from a provision of subsection (5) to (7) in an emergency or to deal with an urgent situation.

(9) A person who contravenes or fails to comply with a requirement to leave a restricted area under subsection (5)(d) may be removed from the restricted area by a police officer or a person authorised by the responsible officer for the restricted area to remove the person.

This is really the substantive amendment, and I will quickly read the explanation for those avid readers of Hansard. The government has consulted with the Electoral Commission and had regard to the New Zealand electoral scheme to develop a process that ensures that information will not be leaked by persons undertaking early counting. The Electoral Commissioner will determine an area to be a restricted area. People entering this area will need to undertake to abide by any conditions of entry and surrender any devices that allow information to be communicated outside the restricted area.

Penalties apply to any person who fails to comply with an undertaking of condition of permission of entry. Penalties also apply to a person who discloses any information relating to scrutiny of votes before the close of poll to a person outside the restricted area. The Electoral Commissioner has the power to make exemptions to these strict rules to deal with an emergency or urgent situation, if required.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Classes 34 and 35 passed.

Clause 36.

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

Amendment No 16 [Maher–1]—

Page 11, line 27 to page 12, line 9—This clause will be opposed

This amendment is in relation to who has the jurisdiction to adjudicate and decision-making power over false and misleading advertising in relation to an election. At the moment, it is the Electoral Commissioner who has those powers. The government's bill proposes to move the decision-making powers from the Electoral Commissioner to SACAT. On one level and superficially you can understand a desire to do that, to have SACAT rather than the Electoral Commissioner adjudicate on powers. However, we do have concerns about how that will work in practice.

I know from my previous role before coming to parliament as state secretary of the Labor Party that during an election campaign there is often a need for complaints to be made against things that will have a prejudicial effect on an election campaign and to be made outside normal business hours. If there was a complaint at night or on a weekend, we are concerned that the registry may not be available to take the complaint. I know from past experience that the Electoral Commission has been available to take a complaint after hours and on weekends, for example.

The other concern we have in relation to not just the timeliness that I have mentioned but consistency of decision-making, when it is the one adjudicator on decisions you tend to get a consistency in the decisions that are being made. I know and appreciate that the Electoral Commissioner will have help, and I suspect Crown law are helping and giving advice, but it is the one decision-maker making decisions, and we think that is good for consistency.

We would be concerned it might fall to—depending who the decision-maker from SACAT was at different times during the campaign. They might be different individuals who bring their own experiences and thoughts to a decision and risk the consistency that you may otherwise have from necessarily the one decision-maker. If there are ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Electoral Commissioner making the decisions, we are open to those.

For the reasons I have stated, we are going to oppose that it be SACAT, for the reasons of autonomy, particularly making and lodging complaints outside when a registry may be open and in terms of consistency of decisions. For those reasons, we are going to oppose these particular changes in this bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government is opposing the proposed amendment. I will address some comments to that but also address some general comments to some concerns I have in relation to where this is all heading. If I can outline the government's position formally first. This amendment opposes clause 36, which amends the misleading and advertising provisions contained in section 113 of the act.

Currently, this section allows the Electoral Commissioner, if satisfied that an electoral advertisement contains a statement purporting to be a fact that is inaccurate and misleading to a material extent, to request that an advertiser withdraw the advertisement and publish a retraction. There is then the option for the commissioner to make an application to the Supreme Court seeking orders for withdrawal and retraction.

Clause 36 of the electoral electronic documents bill removes this function from the Electoral Commissioner and provides that an application can be made to the SACAT seeking orders for retraction and withdrawal of a misleading advertisement. There are rights of appeal to either the Court of Appeal or a single judge of the Supreme Court under the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, depending on whether or not the original decision was made by a presidential member of the tribunal.

In the election report, the Electoral Commissioner set out the significant challenges of regulating misleading advertising. The amendments in clause 36 would mean that the Electoral Commissioner would be able to focus on administering the Electoral Act in the lead-up to the election without having to become involved in potentially partisan disputes. The Electoral Commissioner will still have the option to either make an application to the tribunal himself or apply to be joined to any proceedings.

This is an increasingly vexed part of electoral law, and it is going to get worse and more complex as we go along. I think this is a cry for help from the Electoral Commissioner, because the Electoral Commissioner is seeing what is developing and he is seeing what is about to happen. I think we will see, if we do not make these changes at this particular election, a very significant problem. Let me put on the public record for those of you who will be in the next parliament looking at the Electoral Commissioner's report, if this provision is not changed, if this is not a highlight or a feature of the Electoral Commissioner's report—I was going to say I would take all of you to lunch, but no, I will take maybe one or two of you to lunch.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Down to the bottom of the Myer Centre?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, down to the Myer Centre. I will meet youse all at the Myer Centre, Mr Chairman, and shout you, those who want to have a meal with me in the Myer Centre and are prepared to slum it with the ex-Treasurer.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Amidst the mirth and frivolity, there is a very serious point that I am making and that is I am putting on the public record that I believe a significant part of the Electoral Commissioner's report at the next election—clearly, COVID will be a key one because inevitably that is going to be all encompassing—one of the key parts of the report, is going to be the problems the Electoral Commissioner has with this particular area of the law.

Part of it, I suspect, is a either a new interpretation the Electoral Commissioner has of this particular provision or new Crown advice, perhaps, that he has in relation to how it should be interpreted. We have on the opposition benches at least two former party apparatchiks or operatives or ex-state secretaries. I served in a similar role a hundred years ago in the Liberal Party. There are a number of people who have served in their party organisations and are familiar with the cut and thrust and the to and fro of election campaigns and complaints about misleading advertising flowing around left, right and centre.

What I am told at the moment is that the Electoral Commissioner is already being increasingly diverted by either, as I said, a new interpretation of the Electoral Commissioner or a new advice that is governing a new determination, which is essentially saying that a single social media post by a member of parliament or a candidate, a single post, as opposed to something which is promoted and advertised, is electoral advertising. Everybody at the moment is lodging complaints under this particular provision for single social media posts by politicians, candidates, political parties and others, about single posts.

The previous interpretation by at least the two major parties and certainly I assume some of the minor parties as well—I cannot speak for them—has been a distinction between a single post by a member, or a candidate, or a political operative, as being, in essence, an expression of public opinion about which you can take issue and say, 'Hey, you are wrong,' and a whole variety of others like that.

You might be governed by the laws of defamation, or not, but it was not construed as political advertising. It was a statement being made by an individual. You could make the statement on radio, or you could make the statement on television, or you could make the statement by way of a letter to an individual, or whatever it is, but if you actually make the statement on social media—on Twitter, or on Facebook in particular—the new interpretation is that that can be construed as misleading advertising.

What is happening at the moment is the Electoral Commission is being inundated with complaints from all and sundry in relation to individual social media posts which have not been promoted by way of advertising, that is you pay extra to get extra coverage, which was I think the old interpretation by political parties and operatives, but a single post is now being construed. That is where we are at the moment and it is going to obviously become more intense—we are four or five months away from an election—over the election period and the period immediately leading up to the election.

So we are going to have a single—and I understand what the Hon. Mr Maher says—a single person should make all the decisions. What I am just saying is it is going to be physically impossible for the Electoral Commissioner, the single person, to make all these particular decisions because he has actually got to try to run a COVID-impacted election campaign and all that that will require. It may be in and around about the same time as working their way around a federal election campaign in terms of polling booth bookings and all of those issues which state electoral commissioners will have to look at and the Australian Electoral Commission will have to look at as well.

For all of those reasons, this issue of trying to allow the Electoral Commission to actually run the election and having somebody else make some decisions about this very vexed area of electoral law in my humble view makes a lot of sense. I understand the point the Hon. Mr Maher says: 'In the ideal world, if you have one omnipotent being who sits there and can adjudicate on every issue that would be terrific.' Those of us who are familiar with, for example, the return to work jurisdiction know that is a physical impossibility.

Again, you might get great consistency if you have one omnipotent being sitting in the Employment Tribunal making every decision in relation to workers' compensation issues, but there are just far too many for it to be done by one. Therefore you have a range of people who have to operate to the law and make their interpretations of what the law might be. That is just a simple fact of too much work for one particular person to handle all of the cases.

I am not sure where the numbers end up in relation to all of this, but if the numbers end up with leaving it with the Electoral Commissioner, as I said, mark my words here and today that I think this will be a significant part of the report highlighting the very significant problems that the Electoral Commissioner has been left with in terms of not only managing the election, but trying to manage thousands of individual complaints from individuals about what they claim to be misleading advertising.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I must say I am impressed with the honourable Treasurer's capacity because he can pre-empt what is going to be in the commissioner's report before the election has even occurred. I might be Machiavelli, but he is certainly a remarkable soothsayer. I do have some questions around how this change may work in practice. The Greens are open to considering the change that the government is proposing.

I guess one of the key concerns for us is around the resources that are going to be given to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal, recognising that that is a clearing house for a number of different disputes. I would invite the Treasurer to speak to that and to outline whether there will be any additional resources allocated to the tribunal to deal with the influx of matters that may come before it.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: All issues in relation to resourcing, if I put on my Treasurer's hat, we are quite happy to consider. At this particular stage, obviously, the decision has not been taken, and therefore the SACAT probably has no line of sight at all as to what the Electoral Commissioner is—I should not say that, they may well have had some discussions I guess, but clearly he has not experienced an election period campaign before and therefore it will it not happen until it happens.

I am told that the advice the Attorney-General has given is that the government will consider any additional resourcing, and I accept that from her viewpoint, but ultimately I as Treasurer make the decisions, unless the Attorney-General has a spare bucket of money in the A-G's Department, but if she does not have a spare bucket of money, more often than not, like the Electoral Commission we have just approved additional funding to the Electoral Commission for the COVID-related extra expenses they believe they are going to have to incur. If it goes this way, an essential part of a working democracy, with the Treasurer's hat on we would have to provide appropriate resourcing to allow the job to be done.

The government is not handing it over to someone so they cannot do the job, because what we are saying is that at the moment the Electoral Commission is going to struggle to do the job as it is. The government's position is: here is a more appropriate place for it to occur. The advice I have just been given is that the tribunal may sit at times and places that the president directs; that proceedings can be conducted entirely on the basis of documents. I understand the process, but the resourcing question the member has put to me is a reasonable one and as Treasurer, as we have done with the Electoral Commission, if there is a valid case to be made to allow an election to be conducted as democratically and sensibly as possible, we will make sure that the appropriate resource is provided.

I suspect that our side of politics will be making as many complaints as all the other sides of politics, so it is not a partisan thing here. Ultimately, somebody has to resolve these issues. We do not believe a single person is now going to be able to adjudicate on all of them. Even if it is the Electoral Commissioner, and it is left with him, whether it is Crown Law officers or others, he is going to have to have a team of people providing advice, and he will not be able to go through each and everyone of them—he will have to rely on advice and ultimately make decisions if he has to or delegate responsibility to one or two deputies to whom he may well delegate to handle these sorts of issues.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: A further question: has the government sought the advice of SACAT in relation to these changes, and are they supportive of the changes, or is this a case where we are going to be allocating the work from the Electoral Commissioner to someone who does not want to take on the job?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I was momentarily diverted, but my adviser tells me that the answer to the question is yes, SACAT has been consulted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: With that in mind, the minister has said they have been consulted. Did they give an indication of whether they are supportive of taking on this additional role?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Attorney-General was asked some questions along these lines, but the primary emphasis from the questioner in the House of Assembly was more about resourcing, I think, in terms of the question. In the nature of those responses, the Attorney-General indicated that she had had some discussions with Justice Judy Hughes, who is the President of SACAT, in relation to it. Most of the questions seem to be directed towards the issue of resourcing and whether there would be additional resourcing. I think the Attorney's answer was at that stage they were not asking for additional resourcing but, as I said, they may well not have been aware yet of the extent of the challenge.

I do not know if there is a specific answer but, with SACAT, frankly, in the end, the parliament decides the jurisdictional issues. We have had this debate before. I am not sure whether on all of those occasions they wanted it or welcomed it or whatever else it was, but the parliament ultimately made a decision and said, in our view, it was appropriate that SACAT take this particular responsibility. So whilst I would be interested in their views, it would not be determinative from my viewpoint as a legislator as to whether they were happy with it or not.

Ultimately, I think we have to make a decision. There are some major issues here about who should adjudicate on these partisan issues. Is it best that we leave it with, in our view, what is going to be an increasingly overloaded Electoral Commissioner, or do we give it to a body that actually has these sorts of responsibilities to try to determine, yes or no, right from wrong, in relation to this particular provision of the law?

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I just have a final question. I do not want to make a meal of an entree, but just to query the penalties available under the new regime that the government is proposing, are they proposing that everything remain the same in terms of the powers available to SACAT when conducting an investigation into a report made to them?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The answer to the question is no, no change in the offences. It is just the jurisdiction issue.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am pleased to overwhelmingly support this particular provision. I was responsible for the complaints handling process during the last election. It was a diabolical mess, nightmare, whatever you want to name it, and that is without all the other issues that the Treasurer has canvassed today. The reality is they simply are not in a position to deal with those complaints and the volume of complaints that get lodged with them.

I am sure that the funding can be sorted, but tied to that is the timeliness of the responses, because once those ads are out there and the damage is done, there is very little that you can do to undo the damage, particularly on polling day as people are turning up to the booths and seeing all manner of corflutes with misleading advertisements on them, which are influencing swinging voters who are on the way to the booth to cast their vote.

In reality, what we saw at the last election was the response was very slow. This is not a criticism of ECSA; it is just the reality of what happened. The response was very slow. There were responses being received well after the election was actually finalised and by that stage any damage that was done by those advertisements had already been done. So I am very hopeful that we are putting SACAT on notice, if you like, and that there is an expectation from the parliament also that when we are considering those complaints they will be dealt with in a timely manner both in terms of withdrawing the advertisements and in terms of publishing any retractions or apologies or whatever the case may be. It is for those reasons that we support this amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I strongly support the opposition's amendment.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Having listened to the debate and the answers to the questions, I also will be supporting the government's position.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I just have some final points, because, if I count, I think I have four votes. Just quickly, in relation to the issue the Hon. Ms Bonaros has raised, my understanding is that there are delays of some three to four weeks with complaints currently going to the Electoral Commission at the moment, and that is not even in the throes of an election campaign. Just imagine what it is going to be like in and around the election period.

I do not know that there is going to be a perfect system, whether we have SACAT or whether we have ECSA. One thing I would suggest to people who are looking at this issue of pre-poll voting or not, etc., is there is at least an argument with pre-poll voting that you can get those people out there who are trying to influence swinging voters beforehand with what some have complained to be misleading advertising. You have a chance to actually raise the issues earlier in the particular debate and get a decision, whether it be from the Electoral Commission or from SACAT.

The more people who are voting on the last day, the less chance you have, because it is all happening on that particular day and the chances of getting things retracted or removed is almost impossible under the existing system. It may well be very difficult under the new system as well for election day stuff.

I think it is another argument for the more people who are voting over a longer period of time. If people are making what others believe to be misleading statements earlier in the process you have at least a couple of weeks to argue before, in this case, SACAT to say, 'Hey, stop them from doing this for the next 10 days of the election campaign,' rather than starting that argument on election day itself, when it might be too late.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: That raises a very interesting point, because as we saw at the last election both major parties saved their best work, in terms of misleading advertising, until the very last day, that being election day. I would seek some clarification as a result of that response and the contribution by the Treasurer as to whether SACAT is going to be dealing with these, open and operational and functional, on election day.

I can attest to the fact that at the last election the commission's office was taking complaints on election day for new advertisements which were being saved for that very special day. In fact, in many cases there were directions given that corflutes containing misleading advertisements be removed from polling booths. We certainly pursued a number of those. I might add that there were directions given in our favour in terms of having those ads removed on polling day itself, so I am certainly envisaging that SACAT will be functioning on polling day and be able to do the same.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: What I would suggest to the Hon. Ms Bonaros is, in 2018, as I understand it, only 10 or 11 per cent of people voted before election day in South Australia. I think the numbers in recent years have demonstrated that it will be many more are going to vote before election day. There may well have been an incentive for parties, the member might believe, to have left their biggest claims to election day because, if 90 per cent of people are voting on election day, you can afford to do so. If you find that 40 per cent or 50 per cent of people have already voted before election day, leaving everything to election day you are going to miss almost half of your target market.

As I said earlier, the reality is that more and more people are going to vote earlier for a whole variety of reasons. Therefore, those who might want to leave their best, as they might see it—or their worst, as the honourable member might see it—to election day will have frankly missed potentially a third or a half of their target market.

In relation to the more substantive question the member has asked, yes, it would make no sense at all for the new arrangements not to have operating facilities available on election day. I am sure the Attorney is attuned to that particular. I will be in discussion with the Attorney. We cannot make the arrangements now because it is not law yet, but if the legislation passes in this particular fashion there would be a requirement for that to occur.

Ayes 11

Noes 8

Majority 3

New clause 36A.

The CHAIR: We now go to amendment No. 17 [Maher-1], which involves the insertion of two new clauses 36A and 36B, page 12, after line 9. We do have a similar amendment from the Hon. Ms Bonaros, which is the insertion of a new clause 36A, but that is the same as the Hon. Mr Maher's new clause 36B. Can I suggest that we do the first part of the honourable Leader of the Opposition's amendment.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If it assists the chamber, before moving my amendment if I could speak to it.

The CHAIR: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I indicate that if particularly the crossbench wish to speak to the views about the first amendment, that is, the banning of robocalls, and if the indications from the chamber are that that is likely to be supported by the crossbench, I indicate that I will not formally move either of my amendments in favour of the Hon. Connie Bonaros's amendment, which does the same thing about robocalls.

So I will just briefly speak about it and then, depending on the will of what the crossbench indicates, may or may not move mine. I indicate that if the crossbench are indicating that they will support the banning of robocalls, I will not move mine and I will support the Hon. Connie Bonaros's ban on robocalls. I will explain a bit further in talking to them.

The banning on robocalls is quite self-explanatory. It would not allow the making of telephone calls consisting of a pre-recorded electoral advertisement. Quite frankly, electors hate this. I do not think there is any other way to put it. Electors hate it particularly when it happens on two consecutive days at 6am, as happened in July 2019, from the Liberal Party. It is one of the areas that is open and is in the arsenal of what political parties may do, but I think it would be warmly welcomed if it was not one of the things that political parties were allowed to do.

That is the genesis for us moving this amendment. It is an amendment we moved in the lower house as well, and it is something we have committed to. If it is not successful in this bill or if this bill does not get proclaimed, we will continue it as a policy commitment to take to the coming election to implement should we form government after the next election.

The other amendment that forms part of amendment 17, is about the one square metre rule. We moved this in the lower house and the genesis of our thoughts on this were twofold: firstly, consistency with federal elections as this does not exist under the federal regime, and some of the experiences in terms of how it is applied. I cannot remember the exact wording in the act itself but if it is advertising an electoral office, the one square metre rule does not apply. I know this has led to various interpretations: for example, about a mobile electorate office and whether the one square metre rule applies to a mobile electoral office—it might be a van or another type of vehicle.

For the sake of consistency with the federal election and for those reasons that have been difficult and applied variously in the past, we have suggested the removal of the one square metre, but it forms part of the amendment and if the will of the chamber appears to be to support the ban on robocalls, we are prepared not to move amendment 17 in its entirety—that would repeal the one square metre rule—as well as robocalls, and just go with the Hon. Connie Bonaros's amendment.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: To assist the leader, I can indicate that the Greens will be supporting the Hon. Connie Bonaros's amendment to ban robocalls. To expedite the process I will make a few quick comments in relation to robocalls and then you can take my position as being put on the record.

The Greens regard robocalls as being a real scourge on our democracy. They are, as the leader has stated, really deeply unpopular. I cannot imagine the fury and disappointment that would befall a voter who hears their phone ring at 6am in the morning only to realise that it is the dreaded call from the Liberal Party spruiking their unpopular wares in the lead-up to an election. That would be a deeply disappointing and frustrating experience and, really, we do not want to see voters being subjected to that kind of spam approach in the lead-up to the election.

I also put on the record our frustration at what we have seen occurring with the Palmer United Australia Party and the ongoing spam text messages and unsolicited messages. These things are a form of virtual junk mail and voters really do not appreciate this kind of invasion of their personal lives, and so the Greens are very supportive of the amendment being proposed by the Hon. Connie Bonaros, and we thank her for putting this initiative forward.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will be supporting the Hon. Connie Bonaros's amendment.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 12, after line 9—Insert:

36A—Amendment of section 115A—Automated political calls

Section 115A(1) and (2)—delete subsections (1) and (2) and substitute:

A person must not make, or cause or permit the making of, a telephone call consisting of a pre-recorded electoral advertisement.

Maximum penalty:

(a) if the offender is a natural person—$5,000;

(b) if the offender is a body corporate—$10,000.

I move this amendment for all the reasons that have been outlined: they are a nuisance, they are a scourge on democracy, they are out of control, they are used for a number of reasons but, of course, particularly for political influence and political purposes.

There are no constraints on robocalls at present apart from the telemarketing industry standard, which has proved to be far from satisfactory in past elections. Technology and do-not-call registers have proven ineffective in blocking these calls, and during an election or other period, even if your number is on those do-not-call registers you can, of course, still receive calls relating to the election, including calls providing information, polling calls, research calls, calls for parties seeking campaign donations, all manner of things.

In 2019, ACMA formally warned the SA Liberal Party, as highlighted by the Hon. Rob Simms, for making polling robocalls during prohibited calling times. They were between 6.15am and 7.30am on at least two occasions. I do not know if there is anything worse: I would be pretty annoyed if anyone rang me at 6.15, frankly, but if it was the Liberal Party trying to sell their wares I would be particularly annoyed. I would also be annoyed if the Labor Party did exactly the same thing. I do not think anyone wants to be getting that sort of call. They are inappropriate hours, and they are an intrusion on people's privacy and their right to privacy and a disturbance in general.

I will point out that in a very recent survey some 80 per cent of voters indicated they did not want robocalls from political parties. The employment of robocalls is directly proportionate to the amount of money a party has to spend, as our recent experiences of being bombarded by the Clive Palmer robocalls and texts in the federal election demonstrated, and in theory, at least, they do give an unfair advantage to parties with deep pockets.

That is not the only reason we do not like them. They are just a pain in the butt. It is our firm view that they should not be allowed in terms of the election process. I am hoping that the government will see sense in this amendment and make up for its previous breaches—mistakes, sins whatever you want to call them—and support this amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Let the political party who has not sinned throw the first stone. It seems to be that everyone is pointing the finger at the Liberal Party. Let me assure you in this particular area our very good friends in the Labor Party—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Not at 6 o'clock in the morning, we don't.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I can assure you, Acting Chair, there have been any number of what some would claim as breaches of good protocol from both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party and minor parties as well.

The Hon. Ms Bonaros asks issues about whether this favours parties with deep pockets. In South Australia, of course, we are governed by restrictions on expenditure, so if a political party actually chooses to spend money on robocalls, as described, they cannot spend money on a variety of other mechanisms.

This parliament has actually acted to place restrictions on expenditure for the period of 1 July through to the election date in terms of total capped spending, and that is for all political parties and candidates. So in terms of the issue that this is in some way an advantage for political parties with deep pockets, this parliament has sought to address that particular issue and has done so for a number of years now.

The government's position is that we are opposing this amendment. The commonwealth Do Not Call Register Act 2006 permits robocalls relating to an election. The Australian Communications and Media Authority explains on its website that, as part of a healthy democracy, political parties, Independent members of parliament, candidates for election or interest groups, including trade unions, will use a variety of ways to communicate with you. During an election or other period, even if your phone number is on the Do Not Call Register, you may receive calls relating to the election, including calls providing information, polling calls, research calls and calls from parties seeking campaign donations.

The Unsolicited Political Communications Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 was introduced into the commonwealth parliament on 25 October 2021 by the federal member for Mayo. The bill allows recipients to unsubscribe from political texts and requires additional information to be provided about actors in robocalls. The bill does not make any changes to the Do Not Call Register Act. If robocalls are to be banned in Australia, these changes should first be made at the commonwealth level. This will avoid any legal arguments about potential inconsistencies between state and commonwealth legislation. For those reasons and others, the government opposes this, but we acknowledge that the numbers would not appear to be with us on this particular vote.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. I.K. Hunter): I would always believe that the Hon. Connie Bonaros would always take my calls but, if this motion is agreed to, I will have to reconsider.

New clause inserted.

Clause 37.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. I.K. Hunter): We have an amendment in the name of the honourable Leader of the Opposition, amendment No. 18 [Maher-1].

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will not be moving this amendment after the abject failure of my amendment No. 16 in this chamber.

Clause passed.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. I.K. Hunter): The next indicated amendment, No. 19 [Maher-1], is new clause 37A.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can indicate I will not be moving this amendment either after the government sensibly adopted what was largely this amendment in Treasurer's amendments Nos 1 and 2.

Clauses 38 to 40 passed.

New clause 41.

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

Amendment No 20 [Maher–1]—

Page 12, after line 23—Insert:

41—Amendment of section 139—Regulations

Section 139—after subsection (2) insert:

(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), a regulation made for the purposes of this Act cannot come into operation during a prescribed period.

(4) A regulation made for the purposes of this Act may come into operation during a prescribed period if the Minister certifies that the registered officer of the major party that is not in government on the date falling 14 days before the making of the regulation has agreed in writing to the regulation coming into operation during the prescribed period.

(5) Subsections (3) and (4) do not apply to the substitution of a regulation by another regulation made for the purposes of Part 3A of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1978 that is substantially the same as the regulation being substituted.

(6) A reference in this section to the major party that is not in government is a reference to the registered political party with the greatest number of members of Parliament, not including—

(a) the registered political party whose members of Parliament form government; or

(b) if the government is formed by the members of more than 1 party, or 1 or more parties and other members of Parliament, whether acting in coalition or otherwise—any registered political party or parties so forming government.

(7) In this section—

prescribed period—each of the following is a prescribed period:

(a) the period of 6 months immediately preceding the day after the day on which a general election must be held under section 28(1) of the Constitution Act 1934;

(b) the period from the issue of a writ for a by-election for a House of Assembly electoral district until the return of the writ.

There are many areas in this bill that allow for regulations to be made in relation to how an election is conducted. It has often been said by members of this chamber, particularly the Hon. Robert Simms' predecessor, the Hon. Mark Parnell, that things are better in legislation than regulation. I can remember many times in my years in this chamber that the Hon. Mark Parnell would move amendments that would put things into legislation, which would otherwise fall into regulation. Often, there is good reason for that. If it is in legislation, we all know what the rules of the game are effectively, and there is no more important area to know what the rules of the game are than at an election.

We are concerned with a large area in this bill that allows for regulations to be made in relation to the conduct of an election, and it is slightly less now because of the amendments that have been made. What particularly concerns us is the possibility that the parliament rises before an election. With this election for example, let's say we have the optional sitting week, and then after that first week of December when parliament rises and there is no more parliament, and regulations are then made, it will be completely up to the government of the day to decide how an election is conducted without the scrutiny of this chamber, without any possibility that regulations could be disallowed because parliament has risen. We think that poses a danger and risk we are not prepared to take.

This was not easy in terms of its drafting, but what the amendment seeks to do—and that is the reason why it is drafted as it is—is if regulations need to be made (and there is a possibility that regulations may be needed to be made once parliament has arisen) what the intention of the drafting has set out to do is to invoke caretaker provisions, that is, it cannot be unilaterally up to the government of the day. It needs to be agreed by the major parties.

I do acknowledge and understand that means that it is not a role for minor parties in the parliament, but that is what caretaker conventions do dictate in terms of decisions that need to be made for the benefit of the state but you are in caretaker mode and you need the concurrence of what is effectively the Leader of the Opposition. This is the best way we have been able to transcribe that into legislation. It will be the will of the chamber what to do, but I do think there is a genuine risk if it is left up to the government of the day to make regulations, once parliament has risen, about how an election is conducted.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This is a bizarre position. It is not only a real smack in the face to the minor parties, it is basically saying, 'Well, forget about the minor parties. We the opposition are the ones that you need to consult.' The caretaker conventions have been, I think, respected by all governments and oppositions for a long period of time. The caretaker conventions operate for the four-week period up until the election. This is not a caretaker convention. This is six months prior to the election. This is the Labor Party's definition, their new version of caretaking convention.

They had 16 years in government, and the caretaker convention period was one month (four weeks), which is accepted convention—I am not disputing that—but now that all of a sudden they are in opposition they say, 'Well, that was fine when we were in government, but now that we are in opposition we need to expand the definition of a caretaker convention because we can't trust this government for a six-month period rather than a one-month period.' It is one rule for the Labor Party and another rule for the Liberal Party.

As I said, it also says, 'At least our well-established processes for regulations have a process in relation to the parliament sitting, and minor parties and major parties and the like get to, under that particular process, express their particular point of view.' The process the Hon. Mr Maher has cooked up for himself is this government just has to consult the Labor Party in relation to these particular issues.

I think the Hon. Mr Maher answered some of the questions himself. This amendment was drafted with in mind that maybe some of the provisions the government had sought to include by way of regulation needed to be curtailed and he was trying to think of bizarre, unusual ways of, in his view, curtailing these new regulation-making powers. All of those that the Labor Party and the crossbenchers wanted to remove have been removed, and those particular provisions have been as the Labor Party and the crossbench would wish in terms of it.

Why would we need now to come up with some bizarre new notion of a six-month caretaker period? And the registered officer of a major party, who is that at the moment? Reggie Martin. We would have to go off to Reggie, who is soon to be a member of the Legislative Council for the Labor Party, to get his approval for all of these, for a six-month period leading into an election.

There are well-established precedents in relation to caretaking conventions. All governments of all persuasions and oppositions have broadly abided by them. There has been no major criticism—occasional criticisms and complaints, but no major criticisms—that they have not been.

The bizarre notion now is that we are going to unilaterally draw for ourselves a new six-month caretaker convention period within which Reggie Martin has to be consulted on everything that the government seeks to do. He is not even an elected official. He is not an elected member of parliament. He has no role other than he happens to be the next favourite son or daughter of the Labor Party to hold the state secretary's position. Well, whoop-de-do, that is great, but having him represented in this legislation as being the required go-to person to give a tick of approval, or something, for a six-month newly designed caretaker period makes no sense at all to the government, so we are strongly opposed.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I indicate, on behalf of the Greens, that we will not be supporting this amendment either. I can certainly understand the desire of the Hon. Kyam Maher and the Labor Party to ensure that there is better oversight and to prevent the scenario, not dissimilar to the one that we have found ourselves in on this occasion, where the government has sought to change the electoral rules very close to an election period.

That said, I am not convinced that the regime that has been proposed by the Labor Party, that is, that the government of the day simply consult with a registered officer of the opposition political party, is the best way to manage that scenario. After all, this individual is not an elected person and I do not know that setting up a situation where simply two major political parties are involved in the process is going to safeguard against the issues that the Hon. Kyam Maher has flagged.

I think the best thing is to ensure that the matters of concern are dealt with through legislation rather than regulation. I think we have put a lot of the issues that were dealt with through regulation back into the legislation and going forward I would suggest that is a better way of approaching electoral law rather than setting up a dynamic where the two major parties can just kind of consult over a six-month period and determine the arrangements that might suit them.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am sorry to disappoint the Leader of the Opposition, but this is where the love ends, in terms of the amendments. We have seen what happens when the two major parties get together and make arrangements to the exclusion of minor parties and it is not good. It is usually very bad, so that is not a risk that we are going to take in the lead-up to an election, of all things.

I appreciate the leader's comments in terms of its intent, but I think both the Leader of the Government and the Hon. Rob Simms have pointed out that not only is it an odd provision but one that effectively puts potentially an unelected registered officer, or whatever their title may be, in the position of being able to make regulations that impact the rest of us. It is certainly not one that I am convinced is neither necessary but more importantly appropriate, for the reasons that have been outlined.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will not be supporting the opposition amendment.

New clause negatived.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (16:53): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.