Bills

Electoral (Accountability and Integrity) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (16:30): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Electoral Act 1985. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (16:31): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today, I introduce the Electoral (Accountability and Integrity) Amendment Bill 2024. This bill, which amends the Electoral Act 1985, is the culmination of years of working to develop a scheme to implement the state government's electoral commitment to ban political donations from state elections.

South Australia has a long and proud history of democratic reform. In 1894, we became the first jurisdiction in the world to grant adult women the right to both vote and stand as a member of parliament. In doing so, South Australia ensured that the subsequently federated Australia would follow our state's example.

We have led the world in some of the most significant changes to the betterment of democracy. It was a 24-year-old Englishman turned South Australian, William Boothby, who in 1854 single-handedly redesigned the ballot paper itself, with his new system now standard across the world. It was South Australian author and activist Catherine Helen Spence who in 1861 began a lifelong campaign for the adoption of preferential voting in her state and later her country. This work contributed to a system by which representatives are not selected by the largest minority of voters but are chosen because they have earned a majority of support from the electorate.

Consistent with this reformist tradition, the South Australian government now seeks to introduce legislation to ban political donations. Democracy in South Australia has a strong history, but that does not mean it faces no risk. Democracy worldwide is in a crisis of confidence. Trust in democratic institutions and leaders is at an all-time low.

The Centre for the Future of Democracy at the University of Cambridge published a study titled 'Youth and satisfaction in democracy', which combined data from close to five million respondents in over 160 countries. The study concluded that current millennials—18 to 34 year olds—are the first generation in living memory where the majority are dissatisfied with the way that democracy functions. Among the larger democracies recording their highest ever level of democratic dissatisfaction were the United Kingdom, Brazil, Mexico, the United States and Australia. It is incumbent upon democratic leaders to act.

Democracy has been described as a work in progress, an ever-evolving and living system, which can and should be continually refined and improved to better serve the people it represents. Complacency is not an option. The pervasive impact of private donations in our electoral and political processes contributed to this trust deficit.

Private money impacts our politics in a variety of ways. In its most corrosive form, private donations made with the aim of securing a particular outcome from members of parliament or ministers can have a corrupting effect. Whilst, fortunately, blatant attempts to purchase favourable decision-making may be rare, a ban on donations has a prophylactic effect of reducing the opportunity for such criminality. Less extreme but nonetheless very troubling is that private money may be gifted to members of parliament or ministers not with a view to securing any particular result but rather in the expectation that decision-makers will be more favourably disposed to generous donors.

As uncomfortable as it may be for those of us who are politicians to admit, the truth is that money can and does buy influence. As the Premier said in his Hawke lecture when he announced that he would be taking this policy to the 2022 election, and I quote the Premier today, (at the time the opposition leader) 'the truth is, every insider has some questions to answer about how we do our job, who we listen to, who we think matters, whose voice we think counts the most'.

It is a well-known feature of our current system that powerful lobbyists can, by making donations, purchase access to decision-makers. Yet no-one should be able to gain additional access to a politician or leader on the basis of their bank account balance. No-one should be able to cut the queue because they are willing to fork out to attend fundraisers to try to gain access.

The decisions taken by members of parliament and ministers must always be made in the public interest and should never be influenced by the private interests of political donors or those who can afford access. A ban on political donations will prevent wealthy donors from purchasing influence or access.

Perhaps the most pervasive and therefore insidious impact of private money on our political system is not the actual impact it has on the process or outcome of decision-making but the perception that it creates. Even where the making of a donation has no impact at all on decision-making, many quarters of the electorate remain sceptical. One need only look at the recent media scrutiny about flight upgrades offered to federal politicians to understand the degree of community concern about the impact that even relatively modest gifts have. For these reasons political donations engender distrust in our politics.

However, political donations give rise to a further, related problem. As touched upon already, members of parliament and ministers can be inundated with requests for their attention. People can and should have the opportunity to engage with their leaders, share their concerns, express their views and advocate for their passions. It is how democracy is intended to work.

Time, however, is a finite resource. When our members of parliament and ministers are beholden to donors, the fundraising activities, which they must necessarily engage in under the rules as they stand in order to compete, distract them from their duties as representatives and decision-makers. If a politician attends a fundraising event, that is time taken away from meeting with a constituent or a small business with a complaint, attending a community sporting event, participating in a departmental policy briefing or meeting with a company CEO to discuss the state's economic objectives. A ban on political donations will go a long way towards both restoring trust in politics and relieving our leaders and representatives from fundraising, which distracts them from serving South Australians.

It may be argued that a ban on donations is unnecessary or that it goes too far. It may be said that a cap on large political donations would be sufficient to restore trust in politics because relatively small donations will not impact on the integrity of political decision-making. This, in our view, is wrong for two reasons. First, it does not address the perception problem discussed above. Levels of trust in politics are such that even small donations raise suspicions in the minds of many electors. Second, a cap on large donations exacerbates the fundraising problem discussed above. In a system where politicians can only secure small donations, they will be required to spend potentially even more time in fundraising in order to compete.

The bill has been drafted in pursuit of these purposes. Although the purposes of the bill are clear, the implementation of the government's policy must be nuanced. A ban on donations prevents the flow of private money that would otherwise be available to fund political communication by participants in our political system. In this way the ban potentially impacts free political communication which is protected under the Commonwealth Constitution. Therefore, the publicly funded scheme that replaces the status quo must be implemented in a manner that balances the interests of the major parties and minor parties, parties and Independents, incumbents and new entrants, and political candidates and third-party campaigners. Crucial to the balancing approach is the need to ensure that the voices of all the different participants in our political process can be meaningfully heard.

I understand that this speech has been circulated to members earlier today along with the report entitled 'Review of the Electoral (Accountability and Integrity) Amendment Bill 2024 (SA)' by a panel of experts comprising the Hon. Greg Parker PSM, Professor John Williams AM and Mr Steven Tully, dated 24 October 2024. I seek leave to have the expert report tabled in parliament for the information of members.

Leave granted.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Also, in the interest of time and given there has been prior circulation of an advance copy of this speech, I seek leave to insert the remainder of my second reading explanation and the explanation of clauses in Hansard without my reading them.

Leave granted.

With these principles in mind, the Government instructed the drafting of a Bill with the following features:

In order to prevent well-resourced participants from drowning out other voices, the Bill imposes caps on electoral expenditure for all parties, candidates and other participants.

The Bill prohibits absolutely political donations to incumbent members of Parliament and registered political parties, and replaces it by expanding the existing system of public funding. That funding is based upon the number of votes garnered at previous elections.

New entrants into the electoral process, such as independent candidates or registered parties without parliamentary representation, will still be permitted to accept donations, as will third party campaigners. However, anonymous donations of $200 or more are unlawful and the amount of any individual donation is capped at $5,000. Further, donations cannot be accepted above the amount of the participant's expenditure cap for the election.

The Bill provides for payments to be made to all registered political parties, candidates and groups in advance of a general election, in order to enable them to have sufficient funds to run a campaign.

Having drafted the Bill, the Government then embarked upon an extensive consultation process. The draft Bill was released in order to garner the views of the various stakeholders who would be affected by this reform. The process elicited 55 responses from electors, registered political parties, former Members of Parliament, academics and political advocacy groups as well as comments and feedback on the YourSAy website—being the State Government's online consultation forum.

In addition to public consultation, the Government commissioned an expert panel to review the reform proposals contained in the consultation Bill and the various consultation responses. The Panel was asked to advise on matters such as appropriate levels for expenditure caps and donations, public funding, and candidate and party registration thresholds.

The panel was comprised of the Hon Gregory Parker PSM, Professor John Williams AM, and Mr Steven Tully.

The Hon Gregory Parker was a Judge of the South Australian Supreme Court from 2013 – 2022, and before then the Crown Solicitor of the State of South Australia. He has extensive experience in public and constitutional law and the processes of government. Professor Williams is the Provost of Adelaide University and a Pro-vice Chancellor, Foundation Director of the South Australian Law Reform Institute, and a former Dean of the Adelaide Law School. He is widely recognised as a leading expert on Australian constitutional law. Mr Steven Tully has extensive experience in the management and administration of elections. He was the South Australian Electoral Commissioner from 1997-2005, and was then the Victorian Electoral Commissioner from 2005 – 2012.

Collectively, the Panel possesses a significant body of experience and expertise in public and constitutional law and electoral matters.

In its Executive Summary of the Report, the Panel endorsed the need for this reform, noting 'the growing concern about the power of unregulated expenditure on the probity and fairness of the electoral contest', and that 'the power of ideas and policy, can too easily be overwhelmed by the megaphone of money.'

The Panel's report made 19 recommendations to the Government. Having considered the consultation responses and the Panel's recommendations, the Government has now made substantial revisions to the consultation Bill. Those changes have picked up many of the suggestions made through the consultation process and generally reflect the recommendations of the Panel. The relatively minor respects in which the Government has departed from the Panel's recommendations are discussed below.

The Government would like to thank all of those who contributed a submission in the consultation process. The Government would also like to thank the Panel for its careful and detailed consideration of the many issues arising from the implementation of this reform.

One of the most important things that the Panel was asked to consider were the appropriate expenditure caps for political parties and candidates. After carefully reviewing the figures contained in the consultation Bill, the panel endorsed the figures contained in the draft Bill, concluding that, '[t]he panel does not consider the proposed caps upon expenditure will unreasonably prevent any class of candidate from presenting their case to the electorate.'

Next the Panel considered the position of third party campaigners, which had received significant attention in the public consultation process. The Panel expressed the view that, 'upon the imposition the proposed prohibition on donations to political parties, there will be a flow of donations to third party campaigners.' The Panel considered that 'unregulated third party expenditure can be harmful to the democratic process.'

The Government accepts the Panel's reasoning, and has incorporated into the Bill caps to regulate the expenditure of third party campaigners. As the Panel acknowledged, 'the purpose of such a cap is not to prevent loud and vociferous voices from being reasonably able to present their case but rather to facilitate a level playing field for third parties.'

The Panel considered that a cap of $375,000 applicable to State-wide campaigns at general elections was appropriate. Having made some adjustments to the administrative and campaign funding for candidates (which I will outline later), the Government considers that it is appropriate to allow for a modest increase to the cap for third party campaigners to $450,000. This is intended to maintain the relativities between candidates and third parties within the same range as that proposed by the Panel. For the same reason, the Government has increased the proposed donation cap applicable to third party campaigners from $2,700 to $5,000, to ensure that third party campaigners are not unduly hampered in their ability to fund their campaigning.

Another significant issue raised during public consultation, and addressed by the Panel, was the effect of the reforms on new entrants. Given that the scheme for public funding under the Bill operates generally by reference to the number of votes garnered at the last election, a different model of funding is required for new entrants. Some advanced funding is provided for new entrants in the Bill.

In preparing the consultation Bill, the Government considered that there was a risk that too many new entrants may register to seek advance funding which may lead to a blow out in costs and voter confusion through a multiplicity of candidates. Accordingly, the consultation Bill proposed an increase to the registration requirements for parties and independents.

The Panel did not accept the increased registration requirements were necessary based on the material available. The Government accepts the Panel's recommendation on this issue. The first election undertaken under the new system will be taken into account in reviewing the operation of the Act and if any subsequent changes become necessary.

The Bill provides for administrative funding for political parties and independent candidates. The consultation Bill had provided that a proportion of this funding could be spent on political campaigning. The Panel, however, noting that this is not permitted in other jurisdictions, recommended that operational funds should be prohibited from use for political purposes. The Government accepts this recommendation.

The Panel also recommended that, in order to address the problem of advantaging incumbents, non-incumbent parties and candidates should also be able to access administrative funding. The Government also accepts this recommendation.

As to the quantum of funding, the Panel recommended a reduction in administrative funding for political parties to $600,000 each half-year. The Panel made this recommendation following a review of the historical expenditure of the major parties. Following receipt of the Panel's recommendation, the major parties have queried the financial conclusions reached by the Panel in arriving at this conclusion. The parties maintain that their administrative expenditure has historically been in the order of $800,000 each half-year.

In order to address this concern, the Government has commissioned an expert accountant report concerning the historical expenditure of the major parties. It was never the Government's intention to deprive political parties of the funds necessary for administrative purposes. The Bill as presented contains funding for $800,000 based upon representations made by the major parties. The accountant report is expected to be available very shortly and before the Bill passes both Houses. Ultimately, the Government will be guided by the expert independent accounting advice on this issue.

In order to afford parity to minor parties and independent candidates, the Government also proposes to increase the administrative funding available to them. Accordingly, the Bill increases the base administrative funding for minor parties from $225,000 to $245,000, and that for independents from $15,000 to $20,000.

Acceptance of the Panel's recommendation that administrative funding should not be available for political purposes has required another change to the Bill. The allowance of expenditure of a portion of administrative funding for political campaigning contemplated by the consultation Bill, would have allowed for limited political spending prior to the pre-election campaign period (commencing on 1 July in the financial year before the election is held). The prohibition of administrative funding for this purpose, as recommended by the Panel and accepted by the Government, leaves a funding gap for those parties and independents who cannot receive donations or advance funding, before the commencement of the pre-election campaign period. However, political campaigning is not something to be restricted only to the election campaign.

Accordingly, provision is made in the Bill for parties and independents to be able to draw upon a small amount of their permitted election expenditure in advance of the formal pre-election period. This provides necessary flexibility, but does not constitute additional funding or allow a party greater relative advantage, because any such expenditure will count towards the maximum election expenditure cap.

The Panel reviewed the dollar per vote funding proposed in the consultation Bill, and concluded that the proposed funding was insufficient. The Panel recommended an increase of $1 per vote funding. The Government agrees. In fact, the Government, in order to ensure that these reforms succeed in providing sufficient funding for all candidates to campaign, proposes to go further and increase party funding to $5.50 per vote, from the current amount (with indexation) of approximately $4.00 per vote for registered political parties. To ensure this increase in funding does not operate to the relative advantage of parties over independents, the Government proposes to increase funding to independents to $8.50 per vote and impose a cap on a party's funding by reference to 33% of the primary vote. The Government expects that these funding levels will ensure that these important reforms will not unduly restrict the capacity of candidates to be heard.

The Panel recommended that the proposal contained in the consultation Bill, that the threshold for the receipt of per-vote funding for Legislative Council members should be increased from 2% to 4%, could not be justified. The Government accepts this recommendation.

The Panel discussed a problem that had been referred to in submissions received in the public consultation process as a 'funding trap'. That problem may arise where minor parties perform badly at an election, thereby leaving them with little, or no, public funding to engage in the next campaign. The Panel recommends that a minor party that finds itself in that position should be able to elect whether to obtain public funding, or to be treated as a non-incumbent party, and therefore able to receive donations.

The Panel identified a similar situation that arises for independents, although in reverse. The consultation Bill would have treated them as equivalent to new entrants, meaning they could always engage in fundraising but the amount of their advance funding would be that for a first-time candidate and not be based on their previous vote performance (if they had previously stood for election). The Panel also recommended that independent candidates in this situation should be able to choose whether to be treated as an incumbent or a new entrant for funding purposes. In accordance with the need to ensure that these reforms do not shut out voices of minor parties and independents, the Government has accepted these recommendations.

Finally, the Panel recommended that these reforms would benefit from further consideration and additional evidence when it becomes available following the next State election. The Government agrees. Accordingly, the Bill contains a statutory review process.

I will now explain the major reforms within the Bill:

Definitions (Sections 4 and 130A)

The Bill includes new definitions and concepts to accompany the reforms, including the following terms describing different classes of electoral participants:

Entitled candidate

Entitled group

Entitled registered political party

An entitled candidate is a candidate which is not elected or endorsed by a registered political party. An entitled registered political party is a registered political party without any sitting members.

The definition of associated entity has been amended to exclude a registered industrial organisation or an entity wholly comprised of registered industrial organisations.

Ban on electoral donations (New Division 6A, Part 13A)

The Bill proposes to prohibit the giving and receiving of an electoral donation to a registered political party, member of Parliament, group, candidate or third party.

The Bill removes the definition of 'gift' to be replaced by the definition of 'donation'. The definition is broad and contains certain exclusions and a regulation making power to include or exclude dispositions of a prescribed kind or in prescribed circumstances.

The Bill introduces the concept of an 'electoral' donation, which is:

A donation made to or for the benefit of a registered political party or group; and

A donation (or such part of a donation) made to or for the benefit of a member of Parliament, candidate or third party which was used or intended to be used solely or substantially for State electoral purposes (and in the case of a member of Parliament – duties as a member of Parliament); or to enable the participant to make an electoral donation or incur political expenditure; or to reimburse those participants for making an electoral donation or incurring political expenditure.

The intent of this provision is not to capture incidental items which may be considered a 'donation' but are not an electoral donation – for example, in circumstances where a Member of Parliament is gifted a drink bottle, tickets to an event, a meal or a similar type of item.

A third party that is a registered entity within the meaning of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Act 2012 is only prohibited from receiving an electoral donation from a foreign entity. No other limitations will apply. This decision was made with consideration to the limitations imposed on the political activities of registered charities and in recognition of their inherent reliance on donations to operate. The intent of this provision, and of others which may impact on the operation of not-for-profit community advocacy groups, is to not suppress the voices of community advocates in the political process.

A recontesting participant (an entitled registered political party, entitled candidate or entitled group that elects to be treated as a recontesting party, candidate or group for the purposes of advance payments), will be prohibited from receiving electoral donations from the capped expenditure period. In exchange, these recontesting participants will be eligible for advance funding on the basis of their previous (unsuccessful) election result. This is to better allow recontesting participants to demonstrate and build on support within the community. A defence applies should the recontesting participant have received donations and subsequently lodged their certificate after the day the capped expenditure period commences.

An electoral donation made to an associated entity is taken to be a donation to or for the benefit of the party to which the entity is associated.

Self-funding by certain participants is allowed subject to certain limitations outlined in the Bill.

Ban on electoral loans (New Division 6A, Part 13A)

The Bill proposes to prohibit the giving and receiving of an electoral loan to a registered political party, member of Parliament, group, candidate or third party.

The Bill includes a definition of loan which does not include a loan provided by a financial institution.

The Bill introduces the concept of an electoral loan, which is:

A loan made to or for the benefit of a registered political party or group; and

A loan (or such part of a loan) made to or for the benefit of a member of Parliament, candidate or third party which was used or intended to be used solely or substantially for State electoral purposes (and in the case of a member of Parliament – duties as a member of Parliament); or to enable the participant to make an electoral loan or incur political expenditure; or to reimburse those participants for making an electoral loan or incurring political expenditure.

A third party that is a registered entity within the meaning of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Act 2012 (Cth) is only prohibited from receiving an electoral loan from a foreign entity. No other limitations will apply.

A recontesting participant (an entitled registered political party, entitled candidate and entitled group that elects to be treated as a recontesting party, candidate or group for the purposes of advance payments), will be prohibited from receiving electoral loans from the capped expenditure period. However a defence applies should the recontesting participant lodge their certificate after the day the capped expenditure period commences.

An electoral loan made to an associated entity is taken to be a loan to or for the benefit of the party to which the entity is associated.

Limitation on electoral donations (New Subdivision 3, Division 6A, Part 13A)

An entitled registered political party, entitled candidate, entitled group and third party (defined as a regulated designated participant) may receive an electoral donation up to the individual cap of $5,000 (2026 indexed) per donor each financial year.

A regulated designated participant is prohibited from accepting an electoral donation from a foreign entity.

It will be an offence for a regulated designated participant to receive an electoral donation of more than the individual cap. There is a defence for a regulated designated participant if certain actions are taken.

In addition to the individual cap, an entitled registered political party, an entitled candidate or an entitled group (defined as a relevant regulated designated participant) is subject to a general cap in respect of total electoral donations received during the capped expenditure period in an election. The general cap for a relevant regulated designated participant in relation to an election is the amount equal to the relevant regulated designated participant's applicable expenditure cap for the election.

It will be an offence for a relevant regulated designated participant to receive electoral donations that exceed the general cap. In addition to the offence, twice the excess may be recovered as a debt due to the Crown. There is a defence for a relevant regulated designated participant if certain actions are taken.

Limitation on electoral loans ( New Subdivision 3, Division 6A, Part 13A)

An entitled registered political party, entitled candidate, entitled group and third party (defined as a regulated designated participant) may receive an electoral loan up to the individual cap of $5,000 (2026 indexed) per lender each financial year.

A regulated designated participant is prohibited from accepting an electoral loan from a foreign entity.

It will be an offence for a regulated designated participant to receive an electoral loan of more than the individual cap.

In addition to the individual cap, an entitled registered political party, an entitled candidate or an entitled group (defined as a relevant regulated designated participant) is subject to a general cap in respect to total electoral loans received during the capped expenditure period in an election. The general cap for a relevant regulated designated participant in relation to an election is the amount equal to the relevant regulated designated participant's applicable expenditure cap for the election.

It will be an offence for a relevant regulated designated participant to receive electoral loans that exceed the general cap. In addition to the offence, twice the excess may be recovered as a debt due to the Crown. There is a defence for a relevant regulated designated participant if certain actions are taken.

Nominated Entities (New Division 2A, Part 13A)

The Bill introduces the concept of a nominated entity and a register of nominated entities.

A registered political party may, by notice in writing, appoint no more than two associated entities as the nominated entities of the registered political party. A nominated entity must be an associated entity of the registered political party.

The Electoral Commissioner must establish and maintain a register to be known as the Register of Nominated Entities, which must be published on a website maintained by the Electoral Commissioner. The Register must include the following details in relation to each nominated entity:

the name and address of the entity;

the registered political party of which the entity is the nominated entity; and

any other details prescribed by regulation.

A disposition of property made by a registered political party to a nominated entity of the registered political party is not a donation. A donation to a registered political party from the nominated entity of the registered political party that is used for administrative expenditure is not an electoral donation and is not subject to the ban. .

Similarly a loan made by a registered political party to the nominated entity of the registered political party is not a loan. A loan to a registered political party from a nominated entity of the registered political party that is used for administrative expenditure is not an electoral loan and is not subject to the ban.

The purpose of the nominated entity scheme is to provide a practical vessel for political parties (which can, on occasion, consist of nothing more than an unincorporated association) to exchange assets or funds with a dedicated company which holds those assets or funds (for example, an asset holding company which has legal ownership of a party's headquarters). As an associated entity of a registered political party, a nominated entity cannot receive outside political donations. In recognition of the possibility that there is potential for a nominated entity to entrench an existing financial advantage, amounts received by a political party from a nominated entity can only be used for administrative expenditure. This will prevent a party using legacy assets to build a long-term political advantage over more-limited new entrants.

Administrative Funding (Division 5, Part 13A)

Registered political party

The Bill proposes to amend the operation of the existing 'special assistance funding' in section 130U of the Act. It will be renamed 'administrative funding'.

Under the Bill, a registered political party meeting the current criteria in section 130U(1), including that at least 1 member of the party is a member of Parliament will be entitled to administrative funding. Whilst the entitlement does not operate on a reimbursement basis, a claim must still be submitted to the Electoral Commissioner in accordance with the requirements in the Bill.

The amount to be paid for a half yearly period is:

If the registered political party has 1 member who is a member of Parliament—$85,000 (2026 indexed)

If the registered political party has 2 members who are members of Parliament—$245,000 (2026 indexed)

If the registered political party has more than 2 members who are members of Parliament, the lesser of the following:

the amount of $245,000 (2026 indexed) in respect of 2 members of Parliament plus $55,000 (2026 indexed) for each additional member of Parliament;

$800,000 (2026 indexed).

A registered political party will also be entitled to a one-off payment (available on a reimbursement basis) of up to $200,000 if:

the party has received a half yearly entitlement payment;

a claim is submitted by the prescribed date and in a form determined by the Electoral Commissioner; and

expenditure was incurred on prescribed administrative expenditure.

Proposed section 130W limits the purpose for which administrative funding may be used by a registered political party.

Independent Member of Parliament

Under the Bill a non-party, or independent, member of Parliament will be entitled to be paid a half yearly administrative funding if the member is a member of Parliament for all or part of the half yearly period and a claim is submitted to the Electoral Commissioner. The amount of the entitlement for a half yearly period is $20,000 (2026 indexed) and it is not on a reimbursement basis. This funding is subject to the same limitations as that which is made available for registered political parties in section 130W – namely that it can only be used for administrative purposes.

In addition to the half yearly entitlement, a non-party member of Parliament will be entitled to a one-off payment of up to $50,000 if:

the non party member is a member of Parliament at the commencement of the section;

a claim is submitted by the prescribed date and in a form determined by the Electoral Commissioner; and

expenditure was incurred on prescribed administrative expenditure.

Repayment of Administrative Funding

The Bill provides that administrative funding must be repaid if it has not been spent and the Electoral Commissioner becomes aware of certain matters triggering the repayment provision.

Policy Development Funding (Division 5A, Part 13A)

The Bill introduces policy development funding for an entitled registered political party. Under the reforms an entitled registered political party will be entitled to policy development funding of up to $20,000 (2026 indexed) per year if:

it was an entitled registered political party for all the year to which the funding relates;

a claim is submitted to the Electoral Commissioner in the form determined by the Electoral Commissioner; and

expenditure was incurred on policy development expenditure.

The policy development expenditure scheme seeks to provide a mechanism for the better development of a contest of ideas, by assisting non-incumbent parties in the development of new policies and concepts.

Advance Payment Scheme (new sections 130PA – 130PG)

The Bill introduces an advance payment scheme for participants so that funding is available prior to an election campaign.

Under the Bill, electoral participants will be eligible for an advance payment of election funding in respect of a general election, or a Legislative Council election. A different scheme applies for a by-election. There will be two payments of advance funding and there is a requirement to lodge a certificate with the Electoral Commissioner for the provision of the advance payments.

In respect to by-elections, only entitled registered political parties and entitled candidates will be eligible for advance payments.

The level of advance payment is dependent on the class of the participant and the type of election for which the funding is required.

For registered political parties, incumbent non party members of Parliament and groups not endorsed by a registered political party with a member of Parliament, the advance payments will be calculated based on the results of the relevant previous election.

For an incumbent independent member of Parliament that was, at the previous House of Assembly general election, endorsed by a registered political party, the level of advance payments will be based on the number of first preference votes given for that member at the previous general election (in accordance with item 3 of section 130PA). The registered political party would be entitled to advance funding based on the first preference votes won by that former member in the previous election along with all the other first preference votes of candidates endorsed by that party in the House of Assembly (in accordance with item 2 of section 130PA).

For an incumbent independent member of Parliament that was at the twice preceding Legislative Council general election endorsed by a registered political party, additional provisions in relation to the level of advance payments will be provided for in the regulations.

An entitled registered political party, entitled candidate or entitled group may elect to be treated as a recontesting party, candidate or group and therefore be entitled to advance payments calculated based on the results of the relevant previous election. In other words, they can choose whether to receive the fixed amount of funding provided in the Bill or funding based on previous election results. A participant who opts for funding based on previous results will be subject to the electoral donations and electoral loans ban.

The Bill provides a limit on the amount of advance payments being up to the applicable expenditure cap of the participant.

A registered political party (other than an entitled registered political party) or non party member may request the early payment of an advance payment, being before the start of the capped expenditure period. Certain requirements apply including a limitation on the portion of the advance payment that can be provided earlier.

There are additional provisions relating to advance payments applying to a Legislative Council minor party as outlined in the Bill.

The quantum of the total of advance payments provided to an electoral participant will be deducted from the amount payable under section 130P.

Any amount provided by way of advance payment will need to be repaid where:

In all cases – the registered political party, candidate or group does not contest the election or is not entitled to payment given in the election by virtue of section 130Q(1) or (2).

In the case of a registered political party – before polling day for the election, the party ceases to operate or be registered or it has been, or is being dissolved or wound up.

Election Funding (Section 130P)

The Bill proposes a change to the amounts and the structure of the per vote funding in section 130P.

The amount per-vote has been raised to $5.50 (2026 indexed) for candidates of registered political parties with a member of Parliament, with candidates of entitled registered political parties remaining eligible for an additional 50 cents per vote for the first 10 percent of first preference votes received.

An additional amount is provided for independent members of Parliament, with incumbent independents eligible for $8.50 (2026 indexed) per vote, and entitled non party candidates also eligible for an additional 50 cents for the first 10 percent of first preference votes.

A separate value applies for by-elections, with $8.50 (2026 indexed) per vote being adopted for candidates of registered political parties with a member of Parliament. Other candidates are eligible for an additional 50 cents per vote for the first 10 percent of first preference votes received.

A limit of electoral funding will apply for registered political parties. There will be a 33% limit on the number of primary votes which can be counted in determining the dollar-per-vote funding under section 130P. The limit is applied by deducting the excess above the 33% limit from the funding payable. This is referred to as the deductible amount in section 130Q.

Expenditure limits (Section 130Z)

The Bill proposes there will be mandatory application of expenditure caps. The amounts in current section 130Z have been adjusted.

The amounts will be reduced to their pre-indexed amounts which is indicated by the reference to '2026 indexed' in the Bill. Indexation will be retained going forward.

Expenditure caps have been introduced for a third party. The limits are:

For a general election (including in relation to a simultaneous Legislative Council election)—$450,000 (2026 indexed)

In relation to an election for a House of Assembly district (other than 1 held as part of a general election)—$60,000 (2026 indexed)

A limit of $60,000 (2026 indexed) applies for expenditure relating to an election in a House of Assembly electoral district at the general election.

For a group of non party candidates in a Legislative Council election the cap will be $100,000 (2026 indexed) multiplied by the number of members of the group but up to a maximum of 5.

State campaign accounts (Division 3, Part 13A)

The requirement to keep a State campaign account will remain for a registered political party, third party, candidate and group.

The Bill outlines the categories of money received or funding provided that must be paid into the State campaign account.

Payments of money for political expenditure must be paid from or attributed to the relevant participant's State campaign account in accordance with any requirements of the Electoral Commissioner.

The Bill also recognises that donations may be received for a federal purpose under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth)and provides for those circumstances.

The Electoral Commissioner will be required to establish and maintain a register of State campaign accounts. An agent will also be required to provide details relating to the account on the request of the Electoral Commissioner.

Disclosures (Division 7, Part 13A)

The disclosure requirements have been amended to reflect the prohibition and limitation on electoral donations and electoral loans.

Section 130ZF has been amended to apply to an entitled candidate, including a member of an entitled group.

Section 130ZG has been amended to apply to those making a donation or loan to an entitled candidate or a member of an entitled group.

Section 130ZH has been amended to apply to those making a donation to an entitled registered political party.

The threshold for disclosure has changed in sections 130ZF, 130ZG and 130ZH to apply a tiered approach for reporting requirements, where detailed disclosure is required for donations and/or loans of more than $1,000.

New section 130ZHA has been introduced applying to those making an electoral donation to a third party. There is a tiered approach for reporting requirements where detailed disclosure is required for electoral donations of more than $1,000.

The threshold for anonymous loans in section 130ZK has been reduced from $1,000 to $500.

Returns (Division 8, Part 13A)

Sections 130ZN (return by a registered political party), section 130ZO (return by an associated entity) and section 130ZP (return by a third party) have been amended to apply a tiered approach to reporting. In respect to a return by a registered political party and an associated entity detailed disclosure is required for amounts received and outstanding amounts of more than $1,000. In relation to a return by a third party, detailed disclosure is required for electoral donations and loans incurred solely or substantially for State electoral purposes or for the purpose of political expenditure of more than $1,000.

Party Registration and Candidate Nomination (sections 39, 42AA and 53A)

The Bill:

Introduces additional information requirements for applications by a party, that is not a parliamentary party, for registration.

Removes the requirement for incumbent independent candidates to provide elector signatures for nomination.

A new provision has been introduced to disapply certain entitlements to registered political parties until the period of 8 months after the date of registration of the political party.

Audits by the Electoral Commissioner (new section 43C and 130ZWA)

The Bill proposes further requirements and powers to assist the Electoral Commissioner in monitoring the activities and documents of applicable entities. Applicable entities are defined as, an entity to whom funding is payable under Part 13A, an associated entity or third party.

The Bill also provides the Electoral Commissioner with additional audit powers for the purpose of determining whether the political party, continues to be eligible for registration.

Offences – Donations and Expenditure Limits (Section 130ZZE)

The Bill inserts penalty provisions in relation to acts or omissions under Division 6 (division relating to political expenditure) and Division 6A (division relating to electoral donations).

There are two new sections which distinguish between an offence where the person knows of the facts that result in the act or omission being unlawful as opposed to an offence where the person ought reasonably to know of the facts that result in the act or omission being unlawful.

New section 130ZZE(a1) provides that a person who does an act or makes an omission that is unlawful under Division 6 or Division 6A is guilty of an offence if the person knows of the facts that result in the act or omission being unlawful. The maximum penalty is $20,000 or imprisonment for 4 years.

There is another penalty provision in section 130ZZE(a2) applying where the person ought reasonably to know of the facts that result in the act or omission being unlawful under Division 6 or Division 6A. The maximum penalty is $10,000 or imprisonment for 2 years.

There is a specific penalty provision in section 130ZZE(a3) relevant to persons participating in schemes to circumvent Division 6 and Division 6A. That provision provides that:

A person must not knowingly participate, directly or indirectly, in a scheme to circumvent:

(a) a prohibition or requirement under Division 6 relating to political expenditure; or

(b) a prohibition or requirement under Division 6A relating to electoral donations.

Maximum penalty: $50,000 or imprisonment for 10 years.

A transitional power for the Electoral Commissioner (applying within the 2 years after commencement) to informally caution or require a person to undertake training, if the person admits to the commission of the offence.

Statutory Review (new provision)

The Bill inserts a statutory review provision requiring the Special Minister of State to cause a comprehensive review of the operation and impact of the reforms to be conducted and a report on the review to be submitted to the Minister. The report must be laid before both Houses of Parliament within 6 sitting days after the report is received. The provision includes other details in relation to the statutory review.

Electoral Commission Report

The Electoral Commission of South Australia, Report into the Operation and Administration of South Australia's Funding, Expenditure and Disclosure Legislation (July 2019), incorporated the review undertaken after the 2018 State election, which was the first election after the commencement of Part 13A and being the first time that participants received public funding and had to satisfy compliance and disclosure requirements. The 2019 Electoral Commission Report made 44 recommendations for legislative change. The following reforms in the Bill implement some of those recommendations:

Conferral of agent powers (new section 130HA) – An agent will have the ability to confer official functions and powers to the acting agent during a temporary absence or unavailability.

Clarification in relation to the agent appointment provisions (sections 130H and 130I) –These changes are technical in nature.

Details of associated entities (section 130ZWB) – The agent of a registered political party must provide the Electoral Commissioner with details of each associated entity on a yearly basis. In addition, notification to the Electoral Commissioner is required within 30 days of when an entity becomes an associated entity.

Appointment of agents for associated entitles (section 130F) – Associated entities will be able to appoint an agent.

Registration of third parties (new Division 8A) – A scheme for the registration of third parties as been introduced, including a requirement for the Electoral Commissioner to publish the register of third parties.

Definition of designated period (section 130ZG, 130ZH and 130ZHA) – The time for donor returns to be lodged for donations made during the designated period has been extended to allow lodgement up to 7 days after the end of the designated period.

Annual political expenditure return (section 130ZR) – The separate expenditure threshold for a third party of $10,000 for the provision of an annual return relating to political expenditure has been removed. The amount applying to all cases, including third parties, will be $5,000.

Entitled group returns (section 130ZF(5a)) – Members of an entitled group will not be required to lodge a donation return if it is a nil return. Due to the deeming provisions in section 130A(5) a gift or loan to a member of a group will be deemed to be a donation or loan to the group if it is made for the benefit of all members of the group. Due to the deeming provision, the individual campaign donations return of members of a group will, in most cases, be nil returns.

Definition of State electoral purposes (section 130A) – A definition of State electoral purposes has been included in the Bill.

Investigations (section 130ZZB) – The investigation powers of authorised officers have been extended in scope to include using the powers for the purpose of finding out whether agents of a candidate or group have complied with Part 13A.

Other Changes

The Bill also makes other changes including:

Technical changes

Changes consequent on the reforms

Minor changes necessary to support the reforms; and

Changes to penalties

In concluding, I would like to thank the many people who have contributed to this process, both in making this election commitment and in formulating this Bill.

While there are too many to name them all, I would like to particularly acknowledge the efforts of the numerous officers who have contributed to this work – particularly Anna Markou of Legislative Services and Mark Emery of Parliamentary Counsel. This reform would not have been possible without their tireless and dedicated work over many months.

I commend this significant reform to Members, and look forward to the debate.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

2—Commencement

These clauses are formal.

Part 2—Amendment of Electoral Act 1985

3—Amendment of section 4—Interpretation

Certain definitions are inserted for the purposes of the measure.

4—Amendment of section 39—Application for registration

Amendments are made to the information required in an application for registration of a political party.

5—Insertion of section 42AA

New section 42AA is inserted:

42AA—Entitlements resulting from political party registration not available until 8 months after registration

A political party (other than a parliamentary party) that becomes registered under the Part is deemed not to be a registered political party until 8 months after the date of its registration for the purposes of specified provisions.

6—Amendment of section 43A—Annual returns and other inquiries

This clause makes amendments related to annual returns and other inquiries relating to registered political parties.

7—Insertion of sections 43B and 43C

New sections 43B and 43C are inserted:

43B—Notification of certain changes

This provision requires parties to provide notification of certain changes.

43C—Audits by Electoral Commissioner etc

This provision provides for audits by the Electoral Commissioner in relation to the registration of a political party.

8—Amendment of section 53A—Nomination of candidate by a person

These amendments relate to requirements with respect to the nomination of candidate by a person.

9—Amendment of section 130A—Interpretation

Certain definitions are inserted for the purposes of the measure.

Other interpretative provisions are amended or inserted for the purposes of the measure.

10—Amendment of section 130B—Objects of Part

The objects of the Part are amended for the purposes of the measure.

11—Amendment of section 130C—Application of Part

This amendment is consequential.

12—Amendment of section 130F—Third parties and associated entities may appoint agents

These amendments relate to the appointment of agents by third parties and associated entities.

13—Amendment of section 130H—Registration of agents

These amendments relate to the registration of agents.

14—Insertion of section 130HA

New section 130HA is inserted:

130HA—Conferral of agent's functions and powers

This provides for the conferral of an agent's functions and powers.

15—Amendment of section 130I—Termination of appointment of agent

These amendments relate to the termination of appointments of agents.

16—Insertion of Part 13A Division 2A

New Division 2A is inserted. Division 2A relates to nominated entities (which is defined) and the keeping of a register of nominated entities.

Division 2A—Nominated entities

130JA—Register of Nominated Entities

130JB—Appointment of nominated entities

130JC—Registration of nominated entities

130JD—Revocation etc of appointment and removal from Register of Nominated Entities

17—Insertion of section 130KA

New section 130HA is inserted:

130KA—Register of State campaign accounts

Provision is made in relation to the keeping of a register of State campaign accounts.

18—Substitution of sections 130L to 130N

Sections 130L to 130N are substituted. The new sections relate to State campaign accounts.

130L—Amounts to be paid into State campaign account

130M—Political expenditure to be paid out of State campaign account

19—Amendment of section 130P—General entitlement to funds

These amendments relate to the general entitlement to funds for votes in elections.

20—Insertion of sections 130PA to 130PG

New sections 130PA to 130PG are inserted. They relate to advance payments of funding for elections.

130PA—Advance payments relating to House of Assembly districts at general elections

130PB—Advance payments—other House of Assembly elections

130PC—Advance payments—Legislative Council election

130PD—Early payment of certain advance funding

130PE—Payments of advance funding to be deducted from public funding

130PF—Certificate for advance payments

130PG—Special provisions relating to certain advance payments

21—Substitution of section 130Q

Section 130Q is substituted.

130Q—Payment not to be made or to be reduced in certain circumstances

Provision is made in relation to the requirements relating to payments under the Division.

22—Amendment of section 130R—Making of payments

23—Amendment of section 130S—Death of candidate

24—Amendment of heading to Part 13A Division 5

These amendments are consequential.

25—Amendment of section 130T—Preliminary

Definitions are inserted for the purposes of the Division.

26—Amendment of section 130U—Entitlement to and claims for half yearly entitlement to special assistance funding

These amendments relate to the entitlement to and claims for half yearly entitlement to administrative funding (previously special assistance funding).

27—Insertion of sections 130UA and 130UB

New sections 130UA and 130UB are inserted. They relate to entitlements to and claims for one-off payments of administrative funding

130UA—Entitlement to and claim for one-off payment of administrative funding

130UB—Entitlement to and claim for one-off payment of administrative funding

28—Amendment of section 130V—Making of payments

These amendments are consequential.

29—Substitution of section 130W

Section 130W is substituted:

130W—Use of administrative funding

Provision is made in relation to the use of administrative funding.

30—Insertion of section 130WA

New section 130WA is inserted:

130WA—Repayment of administrative funding

Provision is made in relation to the repayment of administrative funding.

31—Insertion of Part 13A Division 5A

New Division 5A is inserted. It provides for policy development funding for certain political parties.

Division 5A—Policy development funding for certain political parties

130WB—Preliminary

130WC—Entitlement to and claims for annual entitlement to policy development funding

130WD—Making of payments

130WE—Use etc of policy development funding

32—Amendment of section 130X—Interpretation

Definitions are amended for the purposes of the measure.

33—Repeal of section 130Y

Section 130Y, which provided for certificates for 'opting into' expenditure caps, is repealed.

34—Amendment of section 130Z—Expenditure caps

Expenditure caps under the Part are amended.

35—Amendment of section 130ZB—Regulation of political expenditure by parties and candidates endorsed by parties

This amendment changes when political expenditure relates to the election of a candidate.

36—Insertion of section 130ZBA

Section 130ZB is inserted:

130ZBA—Prohibition on political expenditure by nominated entities

New section 130ZBA provides that an associated entity must not incur political expenditure during any period in which it is the nominated entity of a registered political party.

37—Substitution of section 130ZC

Section 130ZC is substituted:

130ZC—Recovery in relation to political expenditure in excess of cap

Previous section 130ZC, which prohibited arrangements to avoid an applicable expenditure cap, is proposed to be provided for in section 130ZZE. New section 130ZC relates to the recovery of political expenditure that is in excess of a cap.

38—Insertion of Part 13A Division 6A

New Division 6A is inserted. Subdivision 1 includes definitions for the purposes of the Division, including electoral donation and electoral loan. Subdivision 2 prohibits electoral donations and loans to registered political parties, members of Parliament, groups, candidates and certain third parties. Donations and loans from foreign entities are also prohibited. Subdivision 3 provides for a scheme for limited electoral donations and loans (other than from foreign entities) to be made to regulated designated participants.

Division 6A—Regulation of donations etc

Subdivision 1—Preliminary

130ZCA—Interpretation

130ZCB—Meaning of electoral donation

130ZCC—Meaning of electoral loan

Subdivision 2—Prohibition on donations and loans for certain parties, candidates etc

130ZCD—Donations to certain parties, candidates etc prohibited

130ZCE—Loans to parties, candidates etc prohibited

Subdivision 3—Limitations on donations etc to regulated designated participants

130ZCF—Application

130ZCG—Individual cap on electoral donations

130ZCH—Prohibition on electoral donations that exceed individual cap

130ZCI—General caps on electoral donations

130ZCJ—Individual cap on electoral loans

130ZCK—Prohibition on electoral loans that exceed individual cap

130ZCL—General caps on electoral loans

39—Amendment of Part 13A Division 7—Disclosure of donations

The word 'gift' is substituted throughout the Division with the word 'donation'.

40—Amendment of section 130ZD—Interpretation

This provision is amended to insert that donation (in the Division) does not include a donation that is a disposition by will.

41—Amendment of section 130ZF—Returns by certain candidates and groups

These amendments relate to returns by certain candidates and groups.

42—Amendment of section 130ZG—Gifts, loans to candidates etc

These amendments relate to returns for donations and loans to certain candidates and groups.

43—Amendment of section 130ZH—Gifts to relevant entities

These amendments relate to returns for donations to certain parties.

44—Insertion of section 130ZHA

New section 130ZHA is inserted:

130ZHA—Donations to third parties

This provision relates to returns for donations to third parties.

45—Repeal of section 130ZI

Section 130ZI is repealed as a consequence of new Division 6A.

46—Amendment of section 130ZJ—Certain gifts not to be received

These amendments relate to donations requiring certain details.

47—Amendment of section 130ZK—Certain loans not to be received

These amendments relate to anonymous loans requiring certain details.

48—Repeal of section 130ZL

Section 130ZL is repealed as a consequence of new Division 6A.

49—Amendment of section 130ZM—Interpretation

This amendment is consequential.

50—Amendment of section 130ZN—Returns by registered political parties

These amendments relate to returns by registered political parties.

51—Amendment of section 130ZO—Returns by associated entities

These amendments relate to returns by associated entities.

52—Amendment of section 130ZP—Returns by third parties

These amendments relate to returns by third parties.

53—Amendment of section 130ZQ—Returns relating to political expenditure during capped expenditure period

This amendment removes the indexation of the amount in subsection (1).

54—Amendment of section 130ZR—Annual returns relating to political expenditure

This amendment relates to annual returns relating to political expenditure.

55—Amendment of section 130ZS—Annual returns relating to gifts received for political expenditure

These amendments relate to annual returns relating to gifts received for political expenditure.

56—Insertion of Part 13A Division 8A

New Division 8A is inserted. It provides a scheme for registration of third parties.

Division 8A—Registration of third parties

130ZU—Interpretation

130ZUA—Political expenditure by third parties

130ZUB—Register of Third Parties

130ZUC—Application for registration

130ZUD—Registration

130ZUE—Third party must notify Electoral Commissioner of change in particulars

130ZUF—Variation and cancellation of registration

57—Amendment of section 130ZV—Audit certificates

These amendments relate to audit certificates under the Part.

58—Insertion of sections 130ZWA and 130ZWB

New sections 130ZWA and 130ZWB are inserted. Section 130ZWA provides for audits of applicable entities (which are defined) by Electoral Commissioner. Section 130ZWB provides for registered political parties to provide details of associated entities.

130ZWA—Audits by Electoral Commissioner etc

130ZWB—Registered political party to provide details of associated entities

59—Amendment of section 130ZZ—Nil returns

This amendment is consequential.

60—Amendment of section 130ZZB—Investigation etc

The investigation powers for the purposes of the Part are amended.

61—Amendment of section 130ZZE—Offences

Certain offences are provided for in connection with the measure. Procedural provisions relating to offences are also provided for.

62—Amendment of section 130ZZH—Regulations

These amendments relate to regulation making powers for the purposes of Part 13A.

63—Amendment of section 139—Regulations

An existing power to modify the application of Part 13A by regulation is amended. An additional power to modify the application of Part 13A for a limited period by regulation is inserted. Another amendment relates to the power to make transitional and savings regulations.

64—Review

Provision for a review of the measure is inserted.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (16:40): I rise on behalf of the opposition as the lead speaker on the Electoral (Accountability and Integrity) Amendment Bill 2024. This bill aims to make a number of broad changes to the electoral funding scheme in South Australia.

This bill introduces substantial changes to the way each of us in this chamber, as elected members of parliament, fundraise our efforts to best represent our constituents. The bill proposes banning donations to members of parliament or candidates if the funds are intended primarily for state election purposes or to cover political expenses, including reimbursements. Instead, it would introduce a system where registered political parties receive ongoing administrative funding based on their parliamentary representation as well as per vote public funding, which already exists.

To align with these proposed changes of an outright ban on political donations, the bill would set mandatory spending caps for participants, both statewide and by electorate, replacing the current optional capped expenditure for the public funding system. This is a significant change. A $100,000 cap per House of Assembly seat, or $3.5 million statewide, and a cap of $500,000 per party for the Legislative Council, or a cap of $125,000 for an Independent is indeed a substantial difference, in the region of a 20 per cent decline upon indexing.

The bill would allow exemptions for new Independent or unaffiliated participants in the political process, permitting them to receive donations of up to $5,000 and offering advance payments to offset the advantages of incumbents. Importantly, the ban on political donations would extend to third parties, which would now be required to register with the Electoral Commission if they intended to incur more than $10,000 in political expenditure. These third parties would include unions, businesses, think tanks, industry bodies and other entities. Registered third parties would be subject to a statewide cap of $450,000 and a per electorate cap of $60,000.

I would like to spend a few moments reflecting upon the fundamental ideological changes that this bill makes. The scheme removes all private funding of political parties, replacing it with taxpayer funds. Effectively, it turns political parties, which the Liberal Party believes should be supported and funded by private citizens, into state-funded entities. It then bases the administrative funding amount on the number of parliamentarians a political party has in the South Australian parliament. By doing this, we believe there is a risk of entrenchment for established political parties; this is inclusive especially of minor parties, who change more than major parties.

Political parties should rise or fall based on their broad support from the public, and that support can change over four years of a government term. However, this bill picks a notional figure for per vote public funding based on the immediate prior election result. Obviously, in the Legislative Council that means eight years ago for a candidate, which is quite a substantial timeline for a member in this place to wax or wane in the public eye.

To date, the government has furnished no examples of how donations in politics have affected public policy in South Australia. It has consistently spoken about perception but has made no real case for this substantial policy. In fact, on the ABC just this morning, the Premier could not highlight any example of a political donation that has influenced public policy.

On ABC online an article from June this year states, 'South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas says that donations distract politicians from issues they should be focusing their attention on'. It does beg the question: what exactly has the Minister for Police been focusing on this month, I dare ask? It certainly does not seem that he and his office have been focused on youth violence or knife crime.

Further to this, the government has not outlined how small donations, say in the range of $10, $50 or even $100, affect the perception of money influencing policy. I would note for the chamber that the majority of donations to the Liberal Party of South Australia fall under $100. We are a grassroots democratic party. I do not mind sharing this information as, as part of the government consultation on this, we submitted 10 years of audited financials for scrutiny into the expert report, which was tabled with this bill. Transparency and democracy are important, so we will not be shying away from facts in this place.

It is concerning for transparency and democracy as to why this bill needs to be completed in this chamber today. The speed at which this reform has been produced and will be passed is, unless the Attorney-General notes otherwise, unwarranted. Whilst we acknowledge the government has been consultative with all parties, the final bill for this landmark reform was released less than 24 hours ago, and this is far from ideal. However, I do wish to thank the staff, who I understand have worked at length and under considerable pressure, to what is perhaps an unnecessary timeline, for their extensive consultation with our team.

The expert report, which I mentioned earlier, is over some 100 pages, the bill itself close to 90 pages. This leaves limited time for members to read and understand the various technical, legal and constitutional points made in that report. The Liberal Party is a vast democratic organisation. It comprises over 150 individual party units, including branches, conventions, councils, committees and state and federal parliamentary parties. Each of these party units has their own office bearer, president, treasury, secretaries, and so forth. These grassroots members of the Liberal Party are largely responsible for the running of their own affairs, and their participation is the heart of the Liberal Party, which stretches back over 100 years to the Liberal Union in South Australia. We have always held our own and paid our own way.

Our compliance with the current state and federal electoral law requires the reporting of some 200 individual Liberal bank accounts multiple times per annum. Our party and our membership are always transparent. While I understand the bill provides the approximate quantum of administrative funding to the Liberal Party, we stand steadfast in our belief that it is inadvertently attempting to fix a problem that does not exist, and using taxpayer funds to do so.

It is our understanding that this bill would come into effect as of 1 July 2025, in time for the next state election. We have concerns that there remains a number of unknowns in this bill, and that will have to play out between now and March 2026. The inclusion of a statutory review is an important safeguard in ensuring the scheme is fit for purpose.

While the Liberal Party does not agree with the ideological changes set out in this amendment bill, we still give our thanks to the hardworking staff who developed this, along with the expert report, and we will not oppose the Electoral Accountability and Integrity Amendment Bill 2024. That concludes my remarks.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (16:48): You have heard the saying so many times: there's no such thing as a free lunch. It can have many connotations. It can be a reminder there is always a trade-off involved in making decisions, so even if it appears to be free there is always going to be a cost somewhere. Take politics, for instance, if some organisation or lobby group invites you to a free lunch or dinner because you are a member of parliament, there just might be a reason behind it or an expectation of influencing your thoughts or decisions on something they might be promoting or supporting.

Of course, this does not occur all the time. These invitations can often be genuine demonstrations of courtesy and respect. Political donations to parties or individuals are another thing altogether and, personally speaking, I felt uncomfortable having to even seek them for election campaigns I have been involved in. I will say categorically that not one person who has ever provided me or the party I was once involved with, has ever expected nor asked me for a quid pro quo. They believed in the democratic process and the principles and policies I stand for rather than an attempt to influence my decision-making.

I fully understand and support the intent of the Premier in bringing this bill to parliament. I believe he genuinely wants to see transparency in our democratic process in keeping wads of private money out of the political spectrum. We have seen what can happen in the recent US presidential elections where billions of dollars are raised by political candidates. Sometimes money can buy influence. It can also make it difficult for candidates vying for positions in congressional elections if they do not have the resources to help fund their campaigns. It is no different in Australia. The major parties will always have the advantage in attracting donations.

The debate over banning political donations is a complex one with strong arguments on both sides. Arguments for banning political donations include:

reduced corruption: it is argued that large donations can lead to undue influence and corruption as donors may expect favours or policy changes in return for their contributions;

increased fairness: a ban could level the playing field allowing smaller parties and independent candidates to compete more effectively; and

reduced influence of wealthy donors: this could reduce the power of wealthy individuals and corporations to shape political outcomes.

Arguments against banning political donations include:

freedom of expression: some argue that banning donations restricts the freedom of individuals and groups to support the causes they believe in;

practical difficulties: implementing a ban is challenging as it might lead to donations being disguised as other forms of support or channelled through external parties. I note the government will try to address this, but it remains to be seen if it is workable; and

reduced campaign funding: parties and candidates rely on donations to fund their campaigns and a ban could limit their ability to reach voters.

So what are the alternative approaches? You could start with requiring greater transparency in political donations such as disclosing the source and amount of all contributions. It could be similar to the setup of the federal Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority but for donations, and could help to mitigate the risks associated with them. Another way is setting limits on the amount of money that individuals and organisations can donate to political campaigns. This could also help to reduce the influence of wealthy donors. I believe this is the type of model now being or about to be put forward by the federal Labor government.

Or what we have before us today: public funding. That is, providing public funding for political parties and candidates, thereby reducing reliance on private donations and ensuring that all parties have access to resources. I am still unsure whether it will be an even playing field, particularly for individuals or other parties contemplating throwing their hat in the ring in 2026. It is comforting to know there will be a statutory review following that election.

I note the Premier has said there will be a cap on third-party donations. That is all well and good, but what he does not mention is the considerable support the Labor Party can still count on from the very powerful union movement in South Australia. The unions, not defined as third parties, are something that the Liberal opposition, minor parties and Independents are unable to utilise or count upon for political support.

To be honest, I am also unclear how this is all going to pan out for incumbent Independents, such as myself and the other Independents in the House of Assembly. Even the Premier seemed to still be getting his head around how it is going to work out, going by his interview on ABC 891 radio today. I do not think the media has got its head around it either. The public, which is going to be funding this, may not have had time to consider it and could also be scratching their heads wondering why around $17 million of taxpayers' money is going to fund all this.

We are heading into uncharted waters. There is not anything like this anywhere else. How will it be policed, who will police it and how much will it cost? A Labor kingpin has told me he does not like this model. He believes it is fraught with anomalies and is not confident it could work or survive a High Court challenge on restricting political communications, and where there already is a precedent.

The Premier says he expects there may be a legal challenge and has set aside money to fight it in case it does make its way to the High Court. As I said earlier, there is an entirely different Labor-designed model about to be put to our federal parliament. The question that comes straight to mind is: why, if the federal parliament has taken a completely different approach to this legislation, are we here dealing with this legislation today?

We know no legislation is perfect and could have unintended consequences, but with the obvious risk of challenge, and while we remain with so many unanswered questions, why does this need to be rushed through on the same day it is introduced? We are just going to have to see how this one plays out. I will be supporting it, although I do have some significant reservations. In the meantime, as 2024 closes out, the Premier can at least tick off another one of his election vanity projects.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:57): I rise to speak in favour of the Electoral (Accountability and Integrity) Amendment Bill and indicate that the Greens will be supporting this bill. I want to start by saying how excited I am that we are finally at this point. It is interesting timing for me. If you will forgive me on a brief indulgence, this week is actually my 10^th anniversary in frontline SA politics. I was elected to the Adelaide City Council back in November 2014. As you know, I went into the Senate before I came here.

One of the issues that I have consistently campaigned on is the need to get money out of politics, to end its corrosive influence on our democracy, and indeed this has been a core mission of the Greens for many years in this place. After all, in our democracy, he who pays the piper so often plays the tune. If we are going to tackle the inequality crisis and the climate crisis that is gripping our state, we need to get money out of politics and end the undue influence of vested interest groups, groups that are strangling our democracy.

In Town Hall, I pushed for a developer contact register to log councillor contact with developers, which was opposed by the Team Adelaide faction. Here in the state parliament, I have moved to amend the Local Government Act to move towards continual disclosure of donations to candidates. I have also pushed for the publication of ministerial diaries and, of course, reforms to crack down on government advertising. The fight for those things continues, but today is a positive step forward. This is a reform that has the capacity to really strengthen our democracy.

The bill not only reduces the capacity for vested interests to potentially influence our decision-makers by making donations, it also reduces the capacity of these groups to exert undue influence over election campaigns, pouring huge amounts of money into election campaigns in an effort to sway election outcomes. We have seen examples of that here in our state in the past and I will highlight some of those examples for the benefit of Hansard.

When the government first introduced this proposal back in June, the Greens indicated that we would carefully consider the details of the bill and that the devil would always be in the detail. We have spent many months working through the details with the government. We undertook our own consultation with stakeholder groups, including the Centre for Public Integrity and SACOSS, and we have also sought the advice of legal academics; indeed, I have met with a few constitutional law experts to seek their views on the bill that the government put forward.

I also sought the views of Greens SA party members and supporters via an online survey. I received many responses to the survey and the respondents encompassed a broad cross-section of Greens SA members, extending from those who are active at grassroots level to our office bearers to members whose involvement is limited to simply donating to the Greens or volunteering on election day. There was strong support for restricting donations and further regulation and compliance requirements for political parties and third-party campaigners.

Overwhelmingly, members of the Greens indicated to me that they supported a ban on donations to political parties from harmful industries in particular, and also regulations on third-party campaigners to limit their spending. It is clear that members wanted us to work with the government to improve this bill and to secure its passage through the parliament; indeed, that is what I have attempted to do in engaging with the government over the last few months.

Like Greens rank-and-file members, one of the issues that I was most concerned about in the government's original draft was the lack of regulation of third-party campaigners and interest groups. I did not want to see the emergence of US-style super PACs here in South Australia, and this has been a long-term concern of the Greens. If we turned off the tap for political donations to political parties there was, under the government's previous proposal, the potential for these groups outside of the parliament to have a disproportionate impact on our elections—because, of course, there would be nothing that political parties could do to be able to compete with those sorts of campaigns.

This was a key issue that stakeholders raised and one that the Greens raised with the government in our negotiations, so I am very pleased that the government agreed to improvements to the bill in that regard. As a result of these discussions, the government has agreed to impose a limit of $450,000 on statewide spending by lobby organisations. That is a $60,000 cap on expenditure in lower house seats for lobby groups and a $5,000 cap on donations to individuals by these groups. These third-party organisations or lobby groups will be required to register prior to incurring political expenditure. Exemptions for some of the work of civil society groups and charities have also been negotiated and that means that they will be able to carry on their important work without being unduly impacted by this new regulatory regime.

There is also going to be an advance post-election funding scheme. A reduction in the threshold for receipt of public funding for Legislative Council candidates from 4 per cent to 2 per cent has been proposed, allowing Legislative Council minor parties that have two members to be able to draw up to 50 per cent of their advance funding entitlement at the next election. We will also have some access to additional administrative funding and there will also be an increase in donation cap amounts for new entrants from $2,700 to $5,000. I consider that to be an important change because I note the concerns that have been expressed by some members around the potential impact on new and emerging players.

I do agree the last thing we want to do through this new regime is actually discourage new people from getting into our political system. But, might I say, I think giving new candidates the opportunity to accept $5,000 donations does mean that they are still able to build a base for themselves and compete at an election. They will also have access, potentially, to some advance funding as well. Again, I think that is a good thing, and I would imagine most donations that small emerging parties receive or, indeed, individual candidates receive would not be in excess of $5,000 in any case, so that is a positive improvement.

There has also been a switch to a decreasing marginal rate model for operational funding, which will provide adjusted funding for additional party members. As I mentioned before, a political party like the Greens that has two members will get a little bit more funding in recognition of the fact that a party like the Greens might have additional operating expenses. I should indicate that the Greens, in our negotiations with the government, made our financial statements available to the government. In the spirit of transparency, we made our statements available to them, and they have taken those into consideration in framing this model.

Critically though, as the Hon. Mr Pangallo has identified, there will be a statutory review that will occur after the next election. This is a significant undertaking, and a significant experiment in many ways. It is one that I think has the potential to really strengthen our democracy but, of course, we have to make sure we get it right, and so a statutory review that will occur after the next state election will give the parliament the opportunity to revisit this, and make changes if we have it wrong.

There are lots of other elements of this bill. I do not wish to touch on all of those because I feel the government members will delve into that in more detail, but I think it is important to talk about some of the principles that are at stake here, and why this particular reform is worthy of support. Is this the model that I would have chosen if I was coming up with my own bill? No, it is not. It is the government's proposal, and that was the basis for the discussions, but I think it is absolutely worthy of support because it addresses so many of the problems we have within our current political system.

One of the significant challenges we face at the moment in Western democracies is a lack of faith in governments and in politics. Part of this is based on the belief that parliament and governments are too captive to powerful vested interests. Indeed, the Social Research Institute at Ipsos conducted a study back in 2018 on this very point. It found that, and I quote from The Conversation:

Just 31% of the [Australian] population trust federal government. State and local governments perform little better, with just over a third of people trusting them. Ministers and MPs (whether federal or state), rate at just 21% [trust], while more than 60% of Australians believe the honesty and integrity of politicians is very low.

What are the three biggest beefs that the broader community have with politicians? Well, the public says they are not accountable for broken promises; they do not deal with the issues that really matter; but also, big business has too much power. Why would people say that? It is not hard to see why this is the case, because big business does have too much power in our democracy.

Why do we not see the action on the climate crisis that we desperately need? Why can we not crack down on the predatory tactics of big food retailers and corporations? Is it because they bankroll the campaigns of our major political parties? Why do we have a planning system that serves the interests of developers rather than the interests of the community? These are the questions that people ask out in the community. That is why people want to see money being taken out of politics: they want to be assured that the people in this place actually serve their interests rather than the interests of the big donors.

There is a useful article that I want to highlight that comes from the website Market Forces and they release this every year looking at the contributions to the major political parties from the fossil fuel industry. This one came out on 1 February 2023. It asks the question:

So why do all three major political parties—

and by that they mean Labor, Liberal and the Nationals—

continue to back the fossil fuel industry at the risk of catastrophic climate change? A trawl of the latest political donations data, released on 1 February, offers some clues.

…fossil fuel companies donated $2 million to the ALP, Liberal and National parties [last year]. Yet given Australia's reputation for woefully inadequate political disclosure and 'dark money' donations, with 35% of all contributions coming from unknown sources, the true figure could be significantly higher.

Well, that should concern all members of the community. Here in South Australia, the government is presenting us with an opportunity to actually do something about it and to help restore some of the trust in our politics. Looking at some of those political donations that are of particular concern to me, Adani, in the year 2021-22, donated just over $107,000 to the Liberal Party. Alinta, in the same year, donated $12,000 to the ALP. Ampol, in the same year, donated $56,500 to the ALP and $32,250 to the Liberal Party.

APA donated $27,500 to the ALP and $30,000 to the Liberal Party. APPEA donated $56,700 to the ALP and $23,500 to the Liberal Party. The Australian Pipelines and Gas Association donated $27,500 to the ALP and $30,000 to the Liberal Party. BHP donated $16,704 to the Liberal Party. Cartwheel Resources donated $50,000 to the ALP. Chevron donated $45,470 to the ALP and $43,000 to the Liberal Party.

It is a disgrace and it needs to end and we are bringing it to a close here in South Australia, thanks to the Malinauskas government's work on these reforms. It is an important reform and it is time we take action on this and that is one of the reasons why the Greens are supportive. We do need to break the nexus between big money and politics.

I also think it is important to identify some of the examples of the nefarious influence, the unfair influence, that big money has had on our politics over the last few elections. I understand the concern that the Hon. Mr Pangallo flagged, but his party, the Xenophon Party, in 2018, was a great casualty, might I say, of the undue influence of external groups in our democracy. The state's gambling lobby in that state election contributed $100,000 to party coffers to campaign against Mr Xenophon and his team because they did not want to see them get a foothold here in the South Australian parliament. There was a huge amount of money that was given to other political parties so they could campaign against the Xenophon team. I quote from an InDaily article at that time. The AHA boss, Ian Horne, told InDaily that:

…over the 2017 calendar year the lobby group had provided $43,534 to the ALP, $49,973 to the Liberal Party and $20,000 to the Australian Conservatives…

They must have been desperate not to have Mr Xenophon in parliament if they gave money to that outfit.

This is an example of vested interest groups trying to influence our elections. It is not right that they should be able to give money to try to deny a party like Mr Xenophon's political party positions in the parliament. It is not right that they should seek to do that, and that is one of the things that we need to stamp out in our democracy, because that should not be the way that things work here.

I note the concerns of Mr Xenophon at that time, when he slammed the AHA not just for donating to the major political parties so that they could actually run in opposition to the Xenophon party but also for running television commercials saying that a vote for SA-Best would put thousands of jobs in the hotel sector at risk.

Again, I know the Hon. Connie Bonaros is passionate about the role of small parties, and I share her passion. I know the Hon. Frank Pangallo is passionate about that as well, and I share their concerns. The reality is that we in small parties can never compete with the deep pockets of these vested interest groups. At least under these reforms there will be a cap imposed on what these groups can do and they will be prevented from being able to make donations to political parties. I think that is a really good thing and a positive advancement in our democracy.

I also note some of the views of different stakeholder groups. I note in particular the report of the Australia Institute that came out in November 2023, where they talked about sweeping changes needed to reduce the influence of money in our politics. They push for a 'mega-donor cap that prevents any one entity from contributing election-distorting amounts of money'. They also talk about the need to consider a ban on donations from companies receiving large government contracts and the tobacco, liquor, gambling and fossil fuel industries.

I know many places around the world, and indeed here in our own country, have taken the approach of trying to exclude particular classes of donors, but I think what the government is doing here is they have gone a step further and said they are not accepting donations from anybody and they are levelling the playing field in that regard.

I note that over the last few days I have had the opportunity to talk to many members in the community who are deeply concerned about the events that have unfolded in the United States and the election of Donald Trump. I am concerned about that for a range of different reasons. One of the things that I think is really terrifying people about democracy in the United States is the influence of these super PACs, political action committees.

I looked up recently to see how much money these super PACs were receiving in donations and what kind of influence they were having on the US presidential election. Between January 2023 and April 2024, US political campaigns collected around $8.6 billion for the 2024 house, senate and presidential elections. A total of 65 per cent of that money—$5.6 billion—came from political action committees.

That is a huge amount of private donations flowing into that system. I think the risk with the previous bill that the government put forward was that we could open the door for those super PACs, or some kind of similar structure, to be rolled out in South Australia. We have closed the door on that, and I think that is a really good thing.

I talked about what we saw before, with the campaign that was run against the Xenophon team by the gambling industry and by the Hotels Association. I do not support that and I thought that was really appalling at the time, but we have seen it also happen at a federal level, with the mining tax campaign that was run by Gina Rinehart, Twiggy Forrest and others in an attempt to destroy the Rudd government. We have seen it here locally, with the campaign run against the former Liberal government's land tax reforms.

We also saw it with the campaign run by the big banks against the former Labor Party's big banks levy, which was a bold, progressive initiative that was opposed vociferously by the big banks. They went out there and said, 'We can't possibly do this. It's going to be ruinous for the South Australian economy,' and ran a huge campaign which people could not compete with. Again, those days are numbered in South Australia because at least there is going to be some level of regulation. I think that is a significant improvement.

I think it is important to address, before I conclude, some of the responses from key stakeholder groups. I note the media release from the Australia Institute that has been issued earlier today where they say that this bill will not improve trust in politicians. I think it references the phrase that the bill has backfired, there has been no public inquiry and a secretive consultation process, and they identify some of their concerns with the bill.

I have a huge amount of respect for the Australia Institute and the work that they do. I think they are a very influential advocacy organisation, but I do not think it is true to say that there has been insufficient consultation in relation to this bill. The government came out with a draft bill six months ago. They asked members of the community their views, and they have also undertaken ongoing consultation with civil and society groups and tried to address many of their concerns.

The challenge, I guess, for the government, and it is for them to articulate the rationale for the approach they have taken, but my guess would be that were this bill to be delayed into the new year then we run out of time in terms of being able to put forward this reform in time for the next state election, and of course then we run up against the federal election. So I understand that concern, but in this instance to delay the bill into the new year means we really are missing the opportunity for this reform to take effect, and that means another state election under the old regime where we see potentially the influence of these vested interest groups continuing without any regulation. This is an opportunity for us to fix that.

As I say, I respect the work of the Australia Institute, but I remember when I was in the federal parliament dealing with Senate voting reform. They were concerned about that at the time, but I maintained it was the right thing to do. Indeed, there was concern at that time that Senate voting reform could see the Greens being wiped out of the parliament. Well, fast forward years ahead and actually the Greens have their strongest ever representation in the parliament.

In that circumstance we voted with the Liberal Party to make that reform happen, so I am open to working with Labor or the Liberals if they come to the table with sensitive ideas to try to improve our democracy. That is the approach we have taken in this regard.

I want to also reference some of the comments that have been made by the Centre for Public Integrity, which I also had the opportunity to meet with when the government put forward their draft legislation. They note in their press release that very substantial improvements have been made to the original draft bill through what they call a rigorous, vigorous and constructive consultation process. They note the quantum of administrative funding that will be available to major party incumbents via not only generous taxpayer-funded payments but up to two nominated entities is substantial, and they reference the independent audit they understand is currently in process to find if it is justified, and they urge the government to amend the bill accordingly if it finds that there is a need to do so.

I share that view. If the auditor comes back and identifies issues with the funding model that we need to look at, well of course we extend an opportunity to the government to work with the Greens to try to get that right. They note one of the most important improvements to the original bill is the addition of a robust statutory review clause, which will see an independent panel examine its impacts after the 2026 election and provide a report to parliament. I think that is a really welcome safeguard in this bill.

They also referenced some of the key improvements that have been made to the bill as a result of the public consultation. There are now third-party expenditure caps. There is a statutory review clause. There is policy development funding. There is the provision for volunteer labour and professional services being treated equally, regardless of recipients. There is administrative funding only able to be used for administrative purposes, not political campaigning. There are donation caps for new entrants. There is a threshold of 2 per cent retained for public funding of candidates in Legislative Council elections. There is administrative funding scaled at a decreasing marginal rate.

These are all, I think, really important safeguards in this legislation. Is the bill perfect? Of course not. Are there things that I would have liked to see in the bill? Of course. Could we have gone further or adopted a different approach? Of course we could have. But my view is that this is an advancement on the status quo, and it is worthy of support. It is a bit of a leap of faith, in many ways, for our democracy. It is going to be a grand experiment at the next state election in 2026, but I feel optimistic that this is something that could really enhance our democracy.

Before concluding, I also want to touch on one of the elements that has come up in discussion around this bill, and that is the significant amount of public funding that has been put on the table here. I understand members of the community will be concerned about the large amount of public funding that is being put forward, particularly in the context of a cost-of-living crisis. I totally understand that. But my view is that one of the best ways that we can get action on inequality in our state is to actually break the nexus between big money and politics and to actually get political outcomes that serve people and our environment, rather than setting up a system that is so reliant on donors.

I guess the fundamental question for South Australians is: who would you rather politicians be responsive to: donors and big corporations, or the citizens? This new model I think ensures that our political parties are responsive to the people whom they should always serve: the South Australian taxpayers, not their donors. I understand the concerns about the public funding model, but lots of places around the world do this, and I think it is a better direction for us to go in in our democracy, rather than seeing us drift further and further in the direction of the United States and all the catastrophic outcomes that flow from that.

In concluding, as has been observed by the Hon. Nicola Centofanti, there has been a huge amount of work that has been done behind the scenes to get this bill to this point, particularly on a very tight timeframe. I want to acknowledge the staff who have done a huge amount of work to make this happen, in particular of course the drafters, who I think have been working very hard to make a range of changes to enhance the bill. I want to acknowledge the Premier, the Hon. Peter Malinauskas, for the collegial and collaborative way in which he has engaged with the Greens on these reforms, and Minister Dan Cregan. I have enjoyed working with both of them on this; we have had lots of discussions over the last few months.

I also want to thank Victoria Brown from the Premier's office and Lukas Price from Minister Cregan's office. I also thank my staff, Melanie Selwood and Sean Cullen-Macaskill in particular, who spent a lot of time over several weeks getting their heads around all the details of what is being proposed.

In closing, it is a leap of faith, but sometimes in life you have to take risks, and when opportunity comes, when the train comes, you get on. My hope is that it is going to carry us to a good destination for our democracy. Let's view this as an opportunity to do something positive. One thing I am hearing in my discussions in the community at the moment is that people are desperate for politicians to do things differently to shake up the system. I see this as an opportunity for us to do that.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (17:29): I rise to offer my support for the government's Electoral (Accountability and Integrity) Amendment Bill 2024. This is a significant and complex reform. It has been a challenging task to wrestle with this bill's complexities and to fulfil my due diligence to the South Australian community.

The government's stated intention with these reforms is to protect and improve our democratic practices by removing the money from politics. The government has declared that public confidence in our democracy is in decline and that these proposed measures will address public concerns about the influence of political donors on our democratic system.

The fundamental components of these reforms are the strict conditions and restrictions on the giving and receiving of electoral donations and gifts to registered political parties, members of parliaments and candidates. It is difficult to deny that individuals and organisations who make large donations to political parties expect to benefit in some way from party policy and decision-making, so the capping of donations and increasing accountability measures in this bill aim to reduce the influence of wealthy donors.

The increased restrictions on private donors will create a shortfall in funding for political parties that will be covered by a substantial increase in public funding. According to the Australia Institute report, 'Money and power in South Australian elections', released in August this year, the cost of party and candidate campaigns in the 2022 state election exceeded public funding by $3.3 million, and this shortfall was covered with private funding, including political donations.

This report also states that the government's proposed bill would increase public funding by $14 million per election cycle. While I appreciate that a vibrant democracy requires a certain amount of public funding, as a member of this chamber I do take my duty to South Australian taxpayers very seriously. This is the public's money, and as such I am committed to ensuring it is spent with the appropriate level of care and diligence, hence my inquires on this matter.

With the intended removal of private donors, the South Australian community will be the ones paying to protect and improve our democracy, so it is only fair that the people be informed about how this new funding model works. The bulk of the funding is allocated to a political party on the basis of how many within the party are elected members of the South Australian parliament, and this means both major parties will receive the lion's share of the funding, with other sitting members also standing to receive some benefit. As a sitting member in this chamber representing a minor party, I am grateful for any additional funding the party receives to advocate for our constituents.

I previously held concerns about the possible future impacts of these reforms on minor parties and Independents, given their relative lack of resources, but the government has addressed these concerns. This brings me to the second fundamental component of this proposal, which is the mandatory spending caps on all political parties, MPs and candidates. At first glance this appears fair and equitable as the spending caps apply to all candidates equally. However, not all candidates are equal, especially when you compare the standing, status and influence of the two major parties to minor parties and Independents.

The advantageous position of the major parties is most apparent when you consider the role of third-party organisations, such as unions, corporations and other advocacy groups who traditionally have supported the major parties, and under the original reform proposals were not subjected to any caps on campaign expenditure. This could potentially have led to well-funded third parties using their uncapped funds to run parallel campaigns supporting a key policy of one of the major political parties, or potentially running a campaign against a minor party or Independent.

This potential for the major parties to circumvent these spending caps through third parties was a legitimate concern, and it was raised by the Australia Institute report in the joint submission from the Australian Democracy Network and by the South Australian Council of Social Service, as well as the submission from the Centre for Public Integrity. However, my office is pleased to report that, through a consultation process with the stakeholders, the government has addressed these concerns by placing a spending cap on third parties, and this, combined with stringent disclosure requirements, will close loopholes associated with these reforms.

I would like to extend my appreciation also to Catherine Williams from the Centre for Public Integrity, who kindly offered time from her busy schedule to confirm with our office that the government has engaged in an effective and collaborative consultation process with stakeholders to address most of the initial and legitimate concerns when this bill was first drafted. I also commend the government for its commitment to negotiate and compromise with stakeholders to address key concerns and reach an effective outcome.

With the establishment of an independent statutory panel of experts due to review these reforms after the next election cycle in 2026, I am hopeful that if this bill is enacted it will be subjected to appropriate and expected levels of political scrutiny and accountability.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (17:34): I rise to speak on the Electoral (Accountability and Integrity) Amendment Bill 2024 and I do so with some degree of caution, mainly I guess because I have not been as involved in some of those discussions as others and here we are debating this bill today. I do not say that flippantly. I say that because I suppose that is a valuable lesson that has been learnt in this place previously, and certainly a valuable lesson that I learnt after another debate that we had in this place, which has turned my mind to the perceptions around these sorts of pieces of legislation.

The Hon. Robert Simms has outlined those issues I think well in terms of what the alternative to getting money out of politics is, and the potential for criticism that we face, not just from the public but from where I sit from minors and Independents, in terms of the funding arrangements that are in this bill. I think what are absolutely clear are two things: I was extremely critical of the first bill that the government proposed back in June and I would like to think for good reason. There is absolutely no question that it was heavily weighted against the minor parties and Independents.

The Premier, I think, acknowledged when I heard him yesterday on radio say that there were deficiencies. I do not think they were deficiencies; they were a bit more than that and I think that it was fair to be as harsh as we were when that bill was first touted because it did not create a level playing field at all. I think I have referred to this bill as everything in the last 48 or 72 hours from Sophie's Choice to Hobson's Choice to being concerned about voting in favour of the leopard that eats your face off.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: —yes, that happens—because all of us want the same thing and that is to get money out of politics. I do not question the intent when it comes to that but when we are talking about taking money out of politics, we have to be careful, of course, not to silence the very voices that keep our democracy vibrant and diverse. Of course, there were concerns that I have expressed about the major parties and perhaps—I do not know, maybe it is PTSD. I have heard the Hon. Rob Simms talk about the 2018 election today, and I get anxious every time I hear the 2018 election referred to because it was brutal in terms of the impacts it had on us.

I will not repeat the quotes that the Hon. Rob Simms has referred to, but having two major parties pour all their attention and effort and resources at a minor party that I am a part of at SA-Best, because of the Xenophon threat, left you with nowhere to turn. It was absolutely brutal and it was something that we have never seen in this state before and hopefully something we will never see again. So perhaps there is some element of PTSD when it comes to that issue.

I guess the other point is, just on that, the minor parties and Independents are always, as other members have expressed, up against it when it comes to the major parties but we have never seen anything like that before. Frankly, I do not think we are ever going to see anything like that again. I am under no illusion—or delusion, I should say—as to how I got elected into this place in the first instance, but it was an extraordinary campaign and one that in my view never should have been allowed to occur in the way that it did.

I have also been here for a very long time around these corridors—this is my 21^st year, I think—and I have seen changes to our electoral reforms before, and each and every time they have been targeted at the minor parties and Independents. So it is again with that degree of hesitancy maybe that I have approached this bill today, because it is hard to accept that there is a piece of legislation here that is supposed to create a level playing field for Independents and minor parties in particular against the major parties when I can count pretty much every attempt that has been made in the last 20 years as doing the polar opposite.

So it does leave you thinking, 'What is next? There must be something else coming. There has to be something else coming. There is a catch.' I guess that is what I have been waiting for: where is the catch? I still do not know where the catch is or if, indeed, there is a catch. I am very hopeful that everything that the Hon. Rob Simms has said today is accurate.

There is no question, like I said, that taking money out of politics has clear benefits and that we do have the potential to do something transformative here in South Australia, but that can only be achieved if the right balance is struck and this is genuinely aimed at strengthening our democratic system, not at keeping the winners winning and short-term sugar hits in terms of money that keep us all thinking that this is a good thing for democracy when in fact long term it does the polar opposite.

I was very critical in relation to the issue of third parties when it came to this, and I think rightly so. Do I still think that there are elements of that that could have been addressed better? I think there are lots of elements in this bill that could have been addressed better. Like the Hon. Mr Simms said, if we were starting from scratch, I do not think this is the model, necessarily, that we would be looking at.

Overwhelmingly, I share the sentiment that has been expressed today in terms of taking money out of politics. I guess we will have to rely on the goodwill of this government, and let's call a spade a spade—and I apologise to the opposition—I expect anyone who is elected to this place at the next election to be dealing with the exact same government that they are dealing with today.

So there is a lot riding on the commitments that they have given in terms of the review clause that accompanies this bill, because these are hugely, extraordinarily complex changes that we are navigating. I do not think that any of us are in a position to say that we know whether they will work or not. They have not been tested. The data is not there. They have not been put through an election cycle, and that is notwithstanding all the criticisms that can be poked and are, indeed, being poked about politicians with their snouts in the trough and the rest of it.

But the model has not been tested anywhere, not just here. It just has not been tested, so we do not know what the impacts are going to be. There is a very important element of this bill in terms of the review, which I have sought to strengthen by way of an amendment which will actually try to strengthen that a little further to ensure that the government of the day is actually committed to coming back to this place—and we cannot force any future government to do anything but we are trying to get the commitments from the government to come back to this place and actually say, 'Now we have been through an election cycle. We know how this has or has not worked, not just for the major parties but in particular for the minor parties and Independents,' and then be genuine about making some reforms around that.

Strengthening that review clause is critically important because we want to make sure that it actually looks at the objectives of the bill that are before us. This is supposed to be about transparency, accountability, integrity, and public confidence in the electoral process.

All of us accept that there is a two major party system but the worst thing that we could do in this jurisdiction, the absolute worst thing that we could do in South Australia of all states, is to adopt measures that make it more difficult for minor parties and Independents to be elected, particularly in the upper house, because we have seen the benefits of having that representation in the upper house for decades here in South Australia. We do not want the major parties to be looking at this as a way of futureproofing themselves at the expense of those minor parties and Independents.

Of course, there are minor parties that benefit greatly, mine included, out of this bill, and that is not lost on me—in fact, it is not lost on me at all—but by the same token we do not want to be doing something that is going to have that same effect on other minor parties and Independents who are looking to come into the electoral system. That is where a lot of my focus has been.

I do take comfort from the fact that we have had the feedback that we have had from the Centre for Public Integrity and the acknowledgement that this has moved a long way since it was first proposed, but I also note again the criticisms that have been levelled at the government. I think the Australia Institute in particular has said that far from transforming or getting money out of politics, the new laws usher in record spending, and they are things that we need to be very mindful of.

I foreshadow again, for members who have not had the benefit, that I have circulated that amendment which I will speak to when we get to it. I look forward to the debate of this bill where we can flesh out a few of these issues more thoroughly.

The Hon. R.B. MARTIN (17:46): I rise to support this legislation. I will not go into the technical details of the bill but I would like to go into some of the principles behind it. If you go back prior to 2013, there was no South Australian legislation that governed donations within South Australia, it was all captured under the federal system—which was at the time, and continues to be, very generous and not all that transparent.

Within the Labor Party, discussion had been happening at many of our AGMs about reforming it and introducing more transparency, and a lot of those discussions and debates were led by the now Premier, Peter Malinauskas, well before he became a member of this place, let alone the Premier of South Australia. The reforms that we have before us today have a long history within the Labor Party and have had one consistent thing behind them, and that is the drive of the Premier, Peter Malinauskas, to make these changes.

In 2010, I was lucky enough to go to the United States to observe a mid-term election in Washington state. It was an eye-opening experience to see how much money was spent on that campaign, but there were two things in particular that really stood out for me. Firstly, in the race that I was observing, the Democratic candidate won the Democratic primary by putting $350,000 of his own money into his campaign account, which was enough money to scare off all the other candidates and they all dropped out of the race because they knew that they could not keep up with him financially.

To an Australian, and someone who is a product of the Labor Party, it was shocking that basically the biggest chequebook enabled you to be preselected as a candidate in that election. The candidate told me this with pride and he was right to be proud that he had had a successful business that had done really well, but, as I said, it did not quite ring correct to me that the biggest chequebook could get you the candidacy as a Democrat. We then discussed the campaign proper and I was able to go into one of their campaign offices.

In America, in this race—and, I understand, in many races—the campaign manager actually requires the candidate to sign a contract, not the other way around. It is not a candidate hiring a campaign director, but the other way around. In this contract that was signed, the congressional candidate was required to spend 31 hours every week dialling for dollars, ringing people up, asking them for donations—31 hours a week, which was quite an amazing amount of time to be spent doing that.

After that, with the discussions within the Labor Party, Labor proposed some reforms to introduce South Australian legislation to cover donation reforms, and that is the current system that we have today. They went a long way to creating a better system, and the principle that we started with was that a party or a candidate should be in the best position to win based on how good a candidate they are, their ideas, and the kind of campaign that they will run, not by how deep their pockets were.

While there were a lot of discussions, and the Hon. Mr Parnell had a different view about how that could be achieved, we decided to cap the amount of expenditure that could be spent. So it did not matter how much money you raised, every party would only be able to expend about $4 million on their campaign. I think that system has served us well, but where we are heading today I think is an even better result, and that is to get rid of donations in their entirety.

For 10 years I ran the Labor Party head office and election campaigns, and a big part of my job was fundraising, seeking donations, and I know some of those that the Hon. Mr Simms mentioned before. I was involved in getting some of those donations that he mentioned, but the one thing that I can say with all honesty is never once in the 10 years that I was in that role did any donation come with any strings attached to it. I can understand why there may be a perception that it was, but certainly in my time there we never received a donation that came with any obligations. It was always a straight-out donation, and we had rules in place to make sure that no candidate could actually receive a donation. It was only the party that could receive that donation.

In the lead-up to the last election, the Premier boldly announced that he would continue that tradition of donation reforms by getting rid of donations. That was a big call, obviously, and many of us wondered if it was possible. It turns out, after what I am advised is something like 75 different drafts of legislation, we have now got there with the bill before us today, and I think it does strike the right balance.

I think we do need to appreciate that it is a significant amount of public funding that is going into this election, but it is being done for the right reasons, and that is to remove that perception of the influence of donations, and also, as I mentioned with the American candidate, to make sure that us, as members of parliament, can solely focus on our job of delivering for the people of South Australia and not have to spend time trying to receive donations so that we can contest the next election. I think it is a really important reform. I think it has been done in the right way for the right reasons, and I support the bill.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (17:52): I thank the honourable members who have contributed on this bill: the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Frank Pangallo, the Hon. Robert Simms, the Hon. Sarah Game, the Hon. Connie Bonaros and, just now, the Hon. Reginald Martin. I think many valid points have been made during the course of the debate and I think, as the Hon. Reggie Martin has just pointed out, it is not necessarily the facts of donations and what they entail but it is a perception of what it might entail, and major parties and minor parties alike—I think the Greens a bit over a decade ago held the record for the single biggest corporate donation. It was about $1.6 million at the time.

The Hon. R.A. Simms: And I was so nice to you.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am not suggesting there was anything that the Greens did differently, but it certainly is the case that it leads to that perception that there might be, which I think we all suffer from that critique that the public has of us, and we all suffer from the fact that it happens even if there is no misfeasance or strings attached, as the Hon. Reggie Martin talked about. The fact that it occurs, I think, casts a shadow over all of us, so I look forward, perhaps after the dinner break, to the committee stage of this bill, to passing this bill, and for Australia to continue, as I mentioned at the start of my second reading explanation earlier this afternoon, for South Australia to continue a leadership role in democratic reform, not just in Australia but across the globe.

Bill read a second time.

Sitting suspended from 17:54 to 19:46.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: My question is to the Attorney. During the second reading stage of this bill, there was some suggestion from some honourable members that the bill may be subject to a High Court challenge and I am interested to know what legal advice the government has had in that regard. In particular, I refer the minister's attention to the review of the Electoral (Accountability and Integrity) Amendment Bill conducted by the panel of experts, the Hon. Greg Parker PSM, Professor John Williams AM and Stephen Tully, and the bearing that that might have on any potential constitutional challenge.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. Certainly, the prospect of a High Court challenge on the implied freedom of political communication is something that was taken into account during the process of designing, consulting and then making changes to this bill. The honourable member would not be surprised that legal advice was sought and received and taken into account along the way.

The report the honourable member refers to, the review of the bill by the panel of experts, certainly is in part designed to improve how the bill works, but also to take into account that expert panel's recommendations to inform us of what ought to be done, according to the panel of experts, in relation to any potential challenge that hypothetically could be made.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: How many of the recommendations from the expert panel have been taken up?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that all of them have been taken into account. They have all been accepted to some degree. There are minor variations in amounts for reasons that take into account the needs and nature of the participants in the South Australian democratic system, but my advice is that to some degree all of them have been taken into account.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: There was some discussion in the second reading stage of this debate about the funding model for political parties. Can the Attorney advise how the funding model has been arrived at?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Recommendations, particularly recommendations 11 and 13 of the expert panel report, talk about funding. There are, obviously, two forms of funding. There is the administrative funding, and the dollar per vote funding to fund campaign activity. In relation to the first part, the administration funding, I am advised that that was heavily informed by the costs that are incurred by parties, and discussions with parties.

I think the honourable Leader of the Opposition quite unusually talked about the fact that the Liberal Party were able to talk about the actual costs in the administration of the party—I think as all parties have—so that administration funding part, I am advised, was heavily informed by the actual costs of what it costs to administer a party. The per dollar vote funding has been largely informed by what it costs to run a campaign, noting that, as I understand it and as I am advised, there is a slight lowering in expenditure caps, but informed by what it costs to run a campaign.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: It was suggested in the second reading stage that the new caps on third parties or vested interest groups would not apply to unions; is that the case?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised if any organisation or group, such as a union, such as a lobby group, such as an industry association, spends more than $10,000 of political expenses they are captured as a third party and they all will be subject to the spending caps that this bill imposes.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The bill is subject to a review and, indeed, there is a clause in the bill that will ensure that it is reviewed after the next state election. Is it the government's intention to work with members of the parliament to remedy any issues that may emerge as a result of that review process?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: With these sorts of bits of legislation, it is always better that people's views are taken into account. Over the last few months, the close work that I understand has gone on between the relevant different groups and the parties, I think, demonstrates the government's willingness to do that and, of course, the government will be willing to do that again, and that will make the whole scheme more robust in taking into account those different perspectives.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: The Attorney stated during his second reading speech that someone's bank account should not determine their access to politicians. Can the Attorney indicate whether this includes the Labor Party's SA Progressive Business fundraising program and will this program cease in 2025?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I understand it, once this is proclaimed and comes into force, fundraising models—and I cannot remember the name of the Liberal Party business fundraising model, Future SA, or SA Progressive Business—that can be membership-based organisations where there is a fee paid or a fee paid for events, that sort of model for the purposes of state election campaigning funding will not be able to occur. This takes out donations of those sorts of kinds for state elections.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! Let's get on with this.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: What is the maximum amount that parties without a sitting member and non-incumbent Independent candidates are permitted to receive in donations?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that in the circumstances the honourable member refers to the cap under the bill is $5,000.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: How much can they as individuals commit to their own campaigns?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that a candidate, and that is a candidate not endorsed by a registered political party during the 12 months preceding polling day, can make contributions up to a total not exceeding the applicable expenditure cap.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the Attorney indicate how much funding can incumbent members or candidates from a registered political party contribute to their own election campaign?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is a candidate, if they are a candidate of a registered political party, cannot make those contributions to their campaign.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can they contribute to their party more generally?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: From the honourable member's last question, I cannot remember if it answers the current one, but just for clarity my advice is for a candidate for a registered political party, if there are sitting members of the party you cannot make contributions, but if it is a registered political party that does not have a sitting member a contribution can be made, up to 50 per cent of the applicable cap, for the House of Assembly. For the Legislative Council, in that situation I am advised it would be up to $100,000.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: So my supplementary to that is: can they contribute to their party more generally?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Just so I have the question correct, as I understand the question, is the honourable member asking if you are—I will let you.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: My first question is: can they contribute to their own election campaign? My second question is: can they contribute to their political party more generally for it to be—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is just to their own campaign.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am just seeking some clarity. Is the question that the member opposite is putting in relation to levies that are payable by—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is what a person can contribute to their campaign.

The CHAIR: Is that different to a levy?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Contribute to their campaign.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In their own right.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: In their own right?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: They are not levies. Levies are allowed.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Levies are allowed?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Yes.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: So they can contribute to their own campaign, which is allowed. Can we just confirm also—because there was some confusion under the previous draft of the bill—that loans themselves from financial institutions are also allowed under the model that is being proposed?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that loans from financial institutions are allowed under this model.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Are loans from financial institutions allowed if they are taken out by an individual who is contributing to their own campaign and they are an incumbent member?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Can you repeat that?

The CHAIR: Slowly and loudly, the Hon. Ms Centofanti.

The Hon. C. Bonaros: Maybe use an example.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Are loans from financial institutions that are taken out by individual members who are incumbent members or candidates from a registered political party to contribute to their own election campaigns allowed?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As an example, could a Liberal member in a lower house seat take out a loan to fund their campaign in that lower house seat, if you are Labor or Liberal, for example? My advice is we have said that it is possible to do so.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Can the Attorney outline some of the options that will be available to new entrants, and in particular Independents who might be contesting election, particularly for the first time?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: And in so doing could the Attorney perhaps provide a comparison of what they would be eligible for now, compared to what they would be eligible for under the bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In relation to a new entrant—someone who is running, for example, as an Independent for the first time for a lower house seat—the support that would be available is advance funding of up to two payments of two and a half thousand dollars, so a total advance payment of $5,000. In relation to the Hon. Connie Bonaros's question—how does that compare to the current situation?—there is no advance funding at all in relation to that.

In addition to that there is the possibility of, depending on at the election how such a new entrant candidate performs of course, the public funding for reimbursement of costs that are associated, that is at a higher rate than it is now.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Just so I am clear, those candidates—those new entrants or Independents—could also take donations of $5,000 from individuals to help them run their campaign; is that the case?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that is correct.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just so we are absolutely clear, those same individuals no longer will have a threshold—a non-disclosable or disclosable threshold—well, it is $200; is that right? Is that the new limit, $200? What was the threshold previously, and what is it now?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is in terms of the threshold for the declaration of the identity of the person who is making the donation. Under the current regime if it is over $200 it cannot in effect be anonymous. I am advised that what is being proposed keeps that in place—that is, if it is a donation of over $200 the identity has to be disclosed.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Is the Attorney aware of any other jurisdiction in the world that provides advance funding for someone standing for parliament for the first time?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have advice of where that occurs anywhere else. That is not to rule the possibility out completely, but I do not have advice of other jurisdictions that do that.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: What are the disclosure requirements for individuals who make those donations now of up to $200? Have there been any requirements on individuals, previously, who were under the threshold? If you were under the threshold there was no disclosure requirement, and if you were over the threshold there was a disclosure requirement. What are the disclosure requirements with respect to the $200?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Below two hundred?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Below and above.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Just to be clear—and I am not sure if this answers the whole question asked—my advice is, as we discussed earlier, that no-one can accept a donation of more than $200 if it is not disclosed who the donor is.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Just to circle back to this question around new entrants, is the intention behind that advance funding scheme for new entrants to encourage new players into South Australian politics and ensure that they are not being disadvantaged by the new regime?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that, in effect, that is exactly right. It is to not disadvantage and in fact provide a more level playing field for those who wish to participate in our state elections.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: There were previously rules in place in relation to those same threshold issues of whether you are over and above and donations being effectively amalgamated. So what are the rules now in relation to the $5,000 donations and the amalgamation of those by donors?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. As I understand it, the question is: if the donations are under that $200 where the identity does not have to be disclosed, given that new entrants can receive up to the $5,000 mark, what if you made 10 donations of $200 and it was cumulatively $2,000? That is a question, as I understand it, when you are a new entrant and can receive those donations. My advice is that if, in a financial year, the cumulative donations are more than $1,000 those requirements apply. So even if each amount is below $200, if it is above $1,000 cumulatively in a financial year there is a disclosure requirement.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: If Connie Bonaros had five companies—

The Hon. R.A. Simms: Lucky Connie Bonaros.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Well, lucky her—and they all had $200 each, or $1,000 each, and they all chose to make a donation and there was a director who was effectively connected to five different companies, does that also accumulate in the same way? Or is it that as long as they are separate entities—so Connie Bonaros 1, Connie Bonaros 2, Connie Bonaros 3, Connie Bonaros 4, Connie Bonaros 5—each can make those donations without it being cumulative?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that if they were separate companies, legal entities, they would not accumulate, but if they are not they would accumulate.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: If they are owned by the same person?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I said, the initial advice was that, if they are separate legal entities, they would be separate, but if they are owned by the same person—I am happy to take that on notice and provide an answer for the honourable member.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: On from that, the $5,000 under the current rules—so moving away from the $200 to the $5,000—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Under what is being proposed in this bill?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Yes. At the moment, under the same scenario, if I own five companies, will they be accumulated for the same reason in terms of the $5,000 cap? Will somebody be in breach of the $5,000 cap by accepting from the same person, who effectively has separate legal entities under their name, multiple cheques of $5,000?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Leave aside the separate legal entities because, as I said, I need to take some further advice, but I will take that on notice and come back to the honourable member. I assume the question the honourable member is raising is: if someone gave—even if it was a natural person doing it—six lots of $1,000, would they be captured by the $5,000 cap? If they gave six lots of $1,000, so they are at $6,000 but each donation was only $1,000, my advice is, yes, they would have clicked over the permissible amount of $5,000 in that respect.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I know I am not being very articulate, but at the moment there is a threshold and if you go over that threshold it is a disclosable donation.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: The $200?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: No, I am talking about at the moment. Under the bill that changes to $200, and there is a cap of $5,000 per donation that a new entrant can collect. If I have five companies or if I am associated with five different businesses, but I give a person five cheques for $5,000, will they be accumulated to say, 'Well, you've gone over the $5,000 cap'? I am talking about the $5,000 cap now. So $5,000 is the limit, and if you receive five lots of $5,000 what are the consequences or limitations in terms of who they can be received by?

Similarly, if I have five brothers and they each chose to give the same person $5,000, so John, Steve, Harry, Paul and Terry all give me $5,000—they all have the same surname and the same address—are they all treated as $5,000 donations and, if they all reside at the same address, are they all treated as separate donations or will someone look at this and say, 'Actually, that is one person trying to give you $25,000; therefore, you have breached your cap'? That is what I am trying to establish.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I think I understand the question, you have five brothers—John, Steve, Harry, Paul and Terry was the example—even if they lived at the same address but were giving their own money, even as brothers, my advice is that they would be individual donations. There is still applicable, I am advised, the spending cap.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: So you are nowhere near the cap.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, you are nowhere near the cap with five lots of $5,000 from John, Steve, Harry, Paul and Terry, brothers who, if they are mad enough to, with all of their own money, want to give you $5,000, but if you tried to replicate that over and over again, you would pretty quickly come up against the overall spending cap that you are allowed to spend.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: What if Paul is 16 and he chooses to give you $5,000?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will have to go away and double-check, but there is nothing in there that I am advised deals with the age of the donor.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Looking at this issue of new entrants, what happens if a new entrant stands in an election and they are not successful? If they contest a subsequent election down the track, are they then able to access advance funding on the basis of their vote, or how would that work?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is if you are a new entrant, so you are an Independent running for a lower house seat, and you ran in one election and you got whatever percentage of the vote that you got, if you are then running again, having been unsuccessful, you can choose whether you want to have your advance funding based on the result you got last time or, for someone who is not a member of parliament, avail yourself to those potential two lots of $2,500.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Just so I am very clear, Independent Joe Bloggs runs for the upper house in 2022, they get 4 per cent of the vote and they miss out. They run again in 2026. They can elect whether they get the up-front payment of just $5,000 or they can get the pre-payment of a percentage of what they got at the previous election; is that correct?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that is correct.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am just going to go back to the brothers. It is a legitimate question I am trying to resolve because you might have someone who wants to come into politics and they have five affluent family members around them, and those five affluent family members have kids. So instead of going out to do the fundraising in the general public, Aunty Mary, Aunty Sophie, Aunty Tina and Aunty Wendy say, 'We will each put in $25,000,' but they know they cannot put in $25,000 because it goes over the cap, so they then say, 'We will give $5,000 to each of the kids to put towards the campaign.'

So across four families you have spread $100,000. That is effectively what I am trying to say. Is the commission going to look at this and say, 'Hold up a minute here, all this money has effectively come from the same four families'?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I appreciate and understand the honourable member's question. As I have said, on two questions I will need to take further advice and take on notice the question about related corporate entities and also the question about related non-corporate entities, that is, family members. It should be pointed out, though, that this is always a balancing act between not doing things that impinge on or discourage to too great or debilitating an extent potential new entrants.

On a question from much earlier on during this committee stage, the advice was that if you are a new entrant you could self-fund to 100 per cent of your cap. So I do take honourable member's point that if there were a number of wealthy families and even if they all gave substantial sums out of their own pocket, that could raise money that might come close to a cap, but, by the same token, if you are a wealthy individual you might be able to fund it yourself up to a cap. That is always a balancing act to make sure we are not putting in place too high barriers for new entrants to become contestants in the political system.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: In regard to new players, is there any accountability or reporting that is required in order to receive the $5,000, or can they receive the money and not spend it on the campaign?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that a new entrant who receives that up-front funding has to certify or verify that it will be used for state electoral purposes.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: In regard to that advance funding, does that apply to any Independent candidate nominating for election? For example, if there are 20 people who nominate as Independents for an electorate or the Legislative Council in a given election, will each of them receive that $5,000? Is there a maximum number of candidates who can receive that funding?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that there is not a limit on the number of Independents in a particular seat or generally who may have the ability to receive that advance funding.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Is there any obligation to return the $5,000 in any circumstance?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There are circumstances where it would have to be repaid. I am advised that it would have to be repaid under section 130PE where the person does not actually contest the election—so if they receive that advance payment but then they do not end up contesting, there is a repayment in that case—or if they have not met the qualification for electoral funding, which in the case of a lower house seat is 4 per cent of the vote or in the case of an upper house seat is 2 per cent of the vote.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I think you have answered my next question, which is: does the candidate need to receive a certain number of votes?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is 2 per cent in the upper house and 4 per cent in the lower house.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: So it is 2 per cent in the upper house and 4 per cent in the lower house. In regard to how the advance funding model works, does the advance funding model apply for candidates who were elected as a member of a registered political party at the previous election and are contesting the next election as an Independent?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Just so I can understand the question, for example, if you were a member of the Liberal or Labor Party, or you got elected as a member of the Liberal or Labor Party, and you left that party and became an Independent member for whatever electorate it is, the question is: are you entitled to get that $5,000? Is that the question?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: The advance funding, whether it be the $5,000 or the percentage of—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that in the situation given in the example before, if you were, say, a Labor or Liberal member or elected to an electorate and then you left that party and were contesting it as an Independent at the next election, you would be entitled to receive funding for that pre-funding of up to 80 per cent of the vote that you received at the last election, notwithstanding that you were not an Independent at the last election.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Is that irrespective of whether you were in the House of Assembly or the Legislative Council?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that the case I have spoken about is for the House of Assembly and that there are regulations that need to be put in place about exactly how that would work for the Legislative Council.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Just to clarify a point, if a candidate is standing for office and they are not successful, is there any requirement for them to pay back the advance funding?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think I answered it previously. There is a requirement and that is if they do not meet the threshold that is required to receive public funding; that is, for a lower house seat, 4 per cent of the vote, or for the Legislative Council, 2 per cent.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Could you please advise if any modelling has been done for how much each party, including minor parties, would receive based on this modelling?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that there have been costings done for the purpose of modelling based on the 2022 election on how much the scheme would cost, but in terms of breaking it down much more granularly, I am advised there are only preliminary costings about how much that would be. I assume that you could look up the Electoral Commission's website, look at how this scheme would work, and come up with those same preliminary estimates.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Can the minister please advise what the figures are that were provided to the minister when this modelling was conducted that he just referred to?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the overall total cost of the reforms is estimated to be $19.8 million over the four years to 2027-28, and again noting that they are preliminary costings.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: What is the costing that has been done for each major party and minor party? What is the amount that has been provided to you?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I say, I do not have copies of that in front of me at the moment, but I am happy to go away and see if there are those sorts of costings that are more than very initial that can be provided, and I am happy to take that on notice.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Can the minister please advise how this costing was done, and what modelling was used?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is these preliminary costings were done in relation to the amounts of the 2022 state election.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: So the minister is presenting a bill to the chamber today, but is not able to provide us with exact figures on whatever modelling was conducted for each major political party and minor party as the parliament stands today going into the 2026 election?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I have said, we clearly do not know what the result of the election will be, but there have been costings modelled on the previous state election. As I have said, there is an estimate of $19.8 million over the four years to 2027-28.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: What happens to any surplus funding after an election; that is, if all the moneys are not spent that have been allocated to members or political parties? Is it banked or is it kept by the parties concerned or candidates, or does it accumulate until the next one? How is that going to work?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Just so I can understand, so I am answering the correct question, I am assuming the honourable member is asking whether you can receive advance funding based on what you got at the last election. If you receive that funding, but do not expend that whole amount, do you just get to keep what you did not spend? Is that essentially the question?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Exactly. You get to keep it.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that you cannot keep it and then just spend it on other purposes. If you have underspent your advance funding from what you have received for the election, you need to certify that it will be spent for state electoral purposes for a next campaign. In relation to underspending, my advice is you cannot just keep it. It has to be spent and you have to certify that it will be spent for state electoral purposes.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can we just go back to the 2 per cent and 4 per cent caps that were spoken of previously as they relate to advance funding, whether you are an Independent or a minor party. There is a notional amount that an Independent or a minor party are entitled to—the amount—so in the upper house whatever the cap is, and in the lower house whatever the cap is. You receive your advance funding—you receive effectively 80 per cent of that funding in advance, 20 per cent is withheld—and then you do not reach the 2 per cent or 4 per cent quota but you have spent all of those funds attempting to get elected, then under the proposed model, whoever it is, whether it is the minor party or the Independent, is liable for the expenditure?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The example that the Leader of the Opposition asked was in relation to advance funding of that two lots of $2,500—the $5,000—and that becomes repayable if you do not meet the 4 per cent in the lower house or the 2 per cent in the upper house is my advice. The advice also is if you received the funding for that 80 per cent from the last election result but you failed to meet either of those, depending on where you are running, it becomes liable to be paid back is my advice.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: In regard to that advance funding model, both the dollar percentage of the vote or the $5,000, does that advance funding model apply for candidates who were elected as a member of a registered political party at the previous election and then are contesting the next election on behalf of another political party—so someone who has swapped, not gone Independent, but has swapped political parties.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think I have understood the question that is being asked. The scenario I think we talked about before is if you ran for the Labor or Liberal party and were elected and then at the next election ran as an Independent, you could rely upon the vote that you got at the last election. If you, in a similar sort of scenario, then run for an already registered political party, that political party, my advice is, does not get that benefit, but if you ran as an Independent you would.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Just to be clear, if I was to spend the allocated $120,000 in 2026 and I do not get the 2 per cent and fail to be elected, I have to repay that total amount—$120,000?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, yes, that is correct.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: How is that fair?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that this is pursuant to recommendation 12 of the expert panel.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just leading on from that question then, there are minor parties and there are Independents in this place. We cannot fundraise, so I cannot go out tomorrow and collect $500,000 worth of donations. After 30 June, I cannot go and fundraise. So my five aunties cannot give me anything after 30 June, but I take the cap, I spend it, and everyone else decides that they are voting for someone else. I am then liable to pay back the cap that I have spent, because I have not been elected, based on the 2 per cent or the 4 per cent, depending on which house I am in.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is my advice, yes.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: So we cannot fundraise. We cannot collect donations. The notion is here that we are taking money out of politics. We are giving you this money, up to the cap that you are eligible for, to be able to have your best shot at running for election, but if you lose because you do not meet those quotas, because all of a sudden everyone does not agree with your stance at an election, then you are liable?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is my advice, yes, pursuant to recommendation 12 of the expert panel.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I ask this generally, because I think all of us are a bit surprised right now. The way that this has been described to us is that there is an 80 per cent up-front payment, there is 20 per cent that is held onto just in case you do not get elected, and there is no payback provision, but we have just been told now by you that if we do not meet those quotas that you have just spelt out and we have gone—I will use me as the example.

I go full hog and I do an election campaign and I try my best, but unfortunately the anti-Connie campaigners are stronger than me and I do not get elected, and I only get 1.5 per cent of the vote—very likely. I am liable for the $500,000 expenditure cap that you have given me, which is supposed to be getting money out of politics and helping minor parties and Independents; is that what we are saying?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is if you do not meet the 4 per cent lower house or 2 per cent upper house you are liable to repay any forward money that you have. I am also advised that if you are paid that money and you do not end up running you are liable to repay it as well.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: And what happens if you come back to me then and I say to you, 'Well, I haven't been able to fundraise, so I don't have the money that I spent just attempting to get myself elected'? What are you going to do? Sell my house? What happens then?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have any advice on the procedures that would operate then.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I think we better go and get some advice on that, because no-one is going to bank their house on a scheme where they cannot collect donations, and you are saying, 'We are being very generous here for the minors and Independents in this place. We're being very generous. We're funding you guys to run your campaigns. You can't go and bring personal money into campaigns anymore. But guess what? If you don't meet this magic quota you're going to be liable for the money.' That has not been explained up until now, Attorney, so I would like some further explanation about that right now.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Just before the Attorney answers, Chair, could I propose that we take a brief five or 10-minute recess? There has been an interesting issue that has come to light in committee, and it would be good to give us an opportunity to get a little bit more information around that. Would that be agreeable?

The CHAIR: That is up to the chamber, is it not?

Progress reported; committee to sit again.