Bills

Electoral (Accountability and Integrity) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 1.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I want to pick up from where we left off and particularly in relation to what transpired yesterday evening and also some of the questions that were asked today and just to be clear for the record. In the absence of any person leaving their party, which they may not, indeed, want to do, and in light of those discussions, to be absolutely clear, there is no other option for sitting members of parties, for instance, in terms of opting in or opting out of the scheme. As we said last night when we were talking about the amendment, you do not have a choice between going and fundraising or being in the scheme. There is one option and one option only.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. She is right. It is not an opt-in system. The choice is not open to you to take donations and not get any funding. Your choices are to have no funding at all or be part of the system. There is not a choice as a sitting MP to take donations in lieu of the funding. That is not an option under this scheme, on my advice.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: That is what I was hoping to clarify, given the questions raised earlier. To be clear again for the record, depending on the year of election, some of us will be eligible for funding in 2018, some of us will be eligible for funding based on the 2022 results, but it is not going to necessarily be the same funding going forward.

Again, I will use me as the example. I am not going to repeat the Xenophon result of 2022 so whilst we may say that in 2022, based on 2018 it is a very generous scale in terms of funding, in all likelihood, at 2026, when the next lot of funding kicks in for 2034, if I am still alive, then that is going to be a very different scenario.

Effectively, what I am saying is the advance funding gives some of us an up at the next election, but then after that you expect a decrease, because you are never going to achieve those same results, or some of us have a slightly lower scale in the next election but then anticipate an increase in funding as it goes forward. It is because we are basing advance funding on our election results, and there is nothing else to base this on, based on the model that the government has conceptualised.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, my advice is that that is in effect correct. The advance funding that is part of this model is based on the results at your last election, whenever that last election was.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: So when it comes even to the administrative funding, it is not fair in fact to say that over the next four years I, for instance, am going to receive whatever I am going to receive per year in administrative funding. What is guaranteed is one year of that funding, pending the outcome of the next election, and if I were to run and fail at that election then it falls over. There is nothing beyond that.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that is in effect right. The administrative funding for a party requires someone to be in the parliament, so if you are not in the parliament that administrative funding does not kick in, is my advice.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just to be clear again then, because we are moving amendments in relation to that 2 and 4 per cent and I think one of the points that was raised by the minister yesterday which needs to be placed on the record is the secondary issue around the 2 and 4 per cent. For the sake of convenience, I am just going to keep using me as the example. I run for election in 2026. I do not make the threshold that would have existed prior to the amendment, so I do not get elected. I do not get anything back and I do not get elected, but then in 2030 I am stupid enough to run again to sit as a member of this place.

I am bound by the 2 per cent cap in 2030, so in order for me to get something after the 2030 election the 2 per cent and the 4 per cent would apply to me as though I were a new entrant. At that point, I would have the choice of either opting in, if I reached the 2 per cent, or fundraising because I have not been elected and effectively starting again.

My question is: regarding the 2 and 4 per cent, that secondary issue that the minister has raised I think is an important one to put on the record, that regardless of your result at the next election, at the election following that if you are not elected that 2 and 4 per cent applies to you.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question, taking an example of someone who was in the Legislative Council as a member of parliament, runs in 2026, is not successful in 2026 but then wants to run again in 2030. Even if they are a member of a party and there are no more members of that party still in parliament, that person, whether they run again as an Independent or again for that same party, will be a new entrant.

That person is entitled to the potential of the new entrant advance payment of the two lots of $2,500. That person also has the capacity in addition to that to raise funds with all the stipulations about the amounts of the single donation and you can only raise up to the cap. If that person, for the sake of the Legislative Council, achieves greater than 2 per cent in 2030, then they have the entitlement to public funding for that dollar per vote, as long as they meet that threshold of 2 per cent.

If it was exactly the same factual scenario in the lower house, that is you are a member in the lower house and you are defeated at the 2026 election but you want to run again, you would have all the same possibilities of the Legislative Council member, that is the two lots of $2,500 and you have the ability to fundraise with the limits on donations up to your cap. If you achieve more than 4 per cent for the lower house, you will get that dollar per vote amount for that, and that dollar per vote amount, the ability to get that dollar per vote amount above the 2 and 4 per cent remains consistent, as it has been since the 2014 changes, is my advice.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I thank the Attorney for his explanation, but by the same token, if in 2026 somebody from a sitting party or an Independent achieves 3 per cent, but it is not enough to get a quota, then at the 2030 election they can either opt to come in as a new entrant or they can access the public funding based on their 2026 result?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that is correct. You can have the choice of being a new entrant with the stipulations we have gone through in my previous answer, or my advice is you could choose to have advance funding if you had achieved that 2 per cent of 80 per cent of whatever your dollar per vote would have been. I am not sure what the maths is of the 3 per cent of the one point whatever million votes there are, but I am advised that would be an option and a choice that a candidate in those circumstances could make.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: In effectively getting rid of the 2 and 4 per cent, we are only getting rid of it insofar as it applies to sitting members who either do not reach the quota or do not get elected, but going forward the 2 and 4 per cent still applies in every other scenario?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is the 2 and 4 per cent that we are getting rid of as the result of discussions in this chamber about this time last night, and the discussions that have gone on between many of the parties that are involved, the 2 and 4 per cent will not apply, as I am advised, to the sitting members of parliament in relation to advance funding they get based on their result at the last election.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Given that candidates have the option to take donations up to the cap unlike sitting MPs, is there a concern around still having at least a perception of political donation impropriety around those candidates who are then successfully elected?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. We are banning donations for state electoral purposes; however, we have designed the scheme to make sure it is as fair as we can conceive it to be to potential new entrants. The alternative would be new entrants not being able to fund a campaign, not having access to money and not having access to funds to campaign because they did not have a result at the last election, as we have just talked about, that has achieved over the 2 or the 4 per cent.

I suspect two things: firstly, that would have rightly attracted criticism for trying to stifle people's ability to partake in this democratic process, but I also suspect that—and it is partly interrelated—given the system is being designed to as best it can not offend that implied freedom of political communication that the High Court has read into the constitution, to make sure that we are again allowing that realistic possibility and best possible chance for a new entrant to do that. Without that it would be very difficult to conceive how that would be done.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: In relation to this question about operational funding, is it not the case under the existing public funding model that in order to get operational funding a political party must have a member of parliament in this place? So operational funding is not made available to political parties unless they have a sitting member of parliament?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised it is termed special assistance funding to help with your operations, particularly in relation to your obligations under the latest funding scheme that came in in 2014, but my advice is, yes, that is correct. To be eligible for that you need to have a member of parliament as a political party in here.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: So what the government is proposing in that regard is actually not a change from the existing status quo?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In terms of the potential eligibility I am advised that is correct: it remains the case that you need to be a member of parliament to have access to that administration or special assistance funding currently. That continues. Of course, exactly how it works and the quantum changes, but in terms of the principle that the honourable member has put forward I am advised that is essentially correct.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: One thing we have not touched on—I cannot remember if we touched on this yesterday—is policy development funding for new entrants. Can the Attorney elaborate on that, please?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. I am advised that there is the ability on a reimbursement basis—so not paid in advance—for non-incumbent registered parties; so as long as the registered party has met all the requirements under the Electoral Act to be a registered party, a non-incumbent registered party can apply on a reimbursement basis for up to $20,000 a year funding for policy development purposes.

Once again, in relation to the last question the Leader of the Opposition asked, this is, again, a measure designed to try to have an equitable way for parties who have done all that they need to do to be a registered party under the act to have an ability to do something in the democratic process, like policy development.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: So as an example, the Animal Justice Party, which is a registered political party in the state, or the Legalise Cannabis Party, which is a registered vehicle party in the state or, I do not know—

The Hon. R.A. Simms: What's his name? Pallaras? Steve Pallaras?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Steve Pallaras? Yes—would be able to apply for that under a reimbursement scheme in terms of policy development? Is that only new entrants who are parties? Is it just registered political parties?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. The idea that there ought to be some sort of funding like this available came as a result of the expert panel, and under the bill before us it applies just to registered political parties. So not every single Independent who wanted to develop policy could have access to the scheme. As I have said before, my advice is you need to have gone through the process. I just cannot remember exactly what it is in terms of number of people who are a member of your party and to go through everything that you need to do to be a registered political party.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Just a note of process, first. I have found this extended clause 1 phase, if you like, very helpful. I think members will be pleased to hear that I had about 40 questions coming into this clause, and I think I am down to about seven left as they have been answered along the way by other members, which has been very helpful. So I thank the chamber for that and the Attorney for his patience in this.

This question may or may not be able to be answered, because it may not have been contemplated, but my question is: what happens in the event that an individual or a party, but probably an individual, cannot repay money that they have been given ahead of time? If they do not hit the 2 or 4, for example, and they are expecting to have to pay that money back, but they cannot, what happens in that circumstance?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. As a result of amendments that we have discussed at quite a bit of length here this morning, for a party or an individual who is a member of parliament and gets that funding based on their last election result the effect of the amendment that will be put forward later on this evening means that as long as you have spent it on electoral purposes, which you are required to give that certification to at the start of the process, my advice is you will not be required to pay that back.

New entrants cannot rely on 2 per cent or 4 per cent because they will not have a vote from the last election but if a new entrant who avails themselves to the two lots of $2,500 does not meet that 2 per cent or 4 per cent, that becomes something that is at the discretion of the Electoral Commissioner and, for all the reasons we talked about earlier as well, liable to be paid back. If they cannot repay the $5,000, it is a debt owing like any other debt that is owed, is my advice.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Just going back to the policy development funding, is the Attorney able to explain to the chamber what sorts of measures might be captured under the policy development purposes?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There is a definition of policy development expenditure, I am advised, in the bill and I can read out the various parts if the honourable member wishes. It is a new section 130WB and it includes things like expenditure on providing information on policies of the party to members and supporters of the party, expenditure on research undertaken by or on behalf of the party for the purposes of policy development, expenditure on conferences, seminars, meetings or similar functions at which policies of the party are discussed and any other expenditure or class of expenditure prescribed by regulations. That is how it is defined within the legislation.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Attorney-General, can you please advise if members of parliament or candidates were to use personal funds to pay for expenses incurred in the line of them carrying out their duties of their employment or campaigning—and maybe if I can use the example of paying for boosting of social media posts or something along those lines—is that something that could occur under this legislation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have the exact details but my advice is that, in relation to what the honourable member is asking—that is, the ability of someone to use their own money, for example, to boost their social media posts—it still remains as it is under the scheme as it currently applies. That is, if it is during the capped expenditure period, and things like that, it may be captured in the overall spend that you have, and this does not change it for the non-capped period either. I will just double-check that.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that if that is expended, it relies on how it has been and how the scheme has operated in terms of your expenditure obligations as they currently stand under the scheme that has been in place since 2014 and, whether it is under the captured expenditure period or outside, it remains as it has been under the scheme as it has previously operated in terms of what counts towards an expenditure cap. That is my advice.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I just want to go to associated entities. Can the Attorney explain whether a registered political party can receive donations for federal election purposes and send it to an associated entity for that entity to use as they see fit?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that money received for a federal purpose—and, again, this is not the subject of this bill, but my advice is that if it is received for a federal purpose under the federal regime, it can only be used for that federal purpose and cannot be taken out and used for other purposes. That is my advice.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: How much can third parties receive in donations?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the cap as an individual donation is $5,000.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Is that an amount per person, per year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, that is correct.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: What can those donations be used for?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that if it is an election donation to be used for state election political expenditure it is captured as a donation under the scheme. If it is not a donation that is given to someone for political expenditure then it is not captured by the scheme by the very definition, because it is not a donation for that purpose. If it is a donation for the purpose of a state electoral campaign then it is captured by this scheme. If it is not a donation for that purpose then it is outside of the scheme.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: If it is captured, what can those donations be used for—any political campaign?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that it can be used for political expenditure under this scheme.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Are registered charities considered third parties under this bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If you are a registered charity, are you counted as a third party? My advice is, yes, you are counted as a third party.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: That being the case, are they then subject to those donation caps?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: This is a little bit complicated, but I will try to get this right and will clarify if I need. My advice is that an ACNC-registered charity, as part of their national registration, is not allowed to campaign for a particular party or candidate. That is part of the qualification to be an ACNC-registered charity. Because of that, they do not have the same donation caps applying given that they are prohibited from doing that as part of their registration.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I apologise if I am not understanding this correctly. Why can they then be considered third parties?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that although they are prohibited from campaigning for a candidate or a party, they are not prohibited from campaigning for what they are involved in, their cause or their issues.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Therefore, my next question is: what can donations to registered charities be used for?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Not campaigning for the candidates.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: No, just for the cause; anything else?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have all the details in relation to that, but that is the advice that I have. As I said, that is a federal scheme. I am happy to go away and try to find more information, but that is governed by a federal scheme.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Is there any impact or consequence on a political party that is registered prior to an election and receives funding and then, post election, is deregistered?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is we are not sure of a situation where there would be a consequence except for the possibility, if there was unspent administrative funding, of having to return that unspent administrative funding. That is all we can think of at the moment.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Just to circle back to the question around advance funding, the terrain the Hon. Connie Bonaros was traversing earlier, there are two elements of advance funding. In the Legislative Council it is based on the vote at not the most recent cycle but the cycle before that. For the House of Assembly it is based on the most immediate election. What is the rationale for the twice removed advance funding formula for the Legislative Council, and what happens if the candidates on the Legislative Council ticket change?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that if it is a party, it does not matter if the candidates change. For parties, that is a regular thing that candidates will change from election to election. In relation to the rationale of why it is the election before last for the Legislative Council, that is because those candidates or their replacements are up for election next time.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I have about half a dozen questions left, so not that many; I am happy to put them at clause 1. A fairly broad question dealing with payment A and payment B in clause 20: I think I understand it, but for the sake of clarity can the Attorney outline how he thinks it would work so that we are clear on that, please?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am almost certain I have understood the question: the 80 per cent advance payment, that is 80 per cent of the dollar-per-vote value you would have got from the last time you were elected eight years ago in the Legislative Council or four years ago in the House of Assembly, is broken up into two payments. The first lot of those payments I am advised occurs at the start of the capped expenditure period.

If we use the next election, for example, 60 per cent of that payment would be on 1 July 2025—the start of the capped expenditure period, nine months before an election—and the next instalment, the final 20 per cent, would be paid at the issue of the writs, so, for the purposes of the next state election, mid or early February, five or six weeks before the state election.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: To go back to a question I asked prior to us finishing up for lunch, the minister indicated he had a response to my question, but I will put it again as a refresh. How would advance funding apply to Legislative Council candidates elected on group tickets who subsequently became Independents to contest the next election?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question and for the ability to have time to make sure we have the correct answer. By virtue of the operation of the act as it stands, the legislation we are talking about and proposing tonight and regulations that will come into place, the way I am advised it will work is that a Legislative Council member, who has been elected on a ticket of a party but then becomes Independent, sits similarly to the operation in the lower house that we talked about for a lower house member becoming Independent. They can have the benefit of that advance funding that the party or the ticket got but only up to the cap of what you are allowed to spend as that one person who is running. The cap for that in the Legislative Council is $125,000, so it would be 80 per cent of that $125,000, which would be $100,000.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Just following up on a question that was asked yesterday that you took on notice around what costings had been done for each major and minor party and what modelling was used, is the minister able to advise the chamber how much each major and minor party would receive, based on modelling with per-vote advance funding based on the 2022 election for the 2026 election?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think I mentioned this last time but my advice is that that rough modelling so far is based on the funding from the last time people were elected, so, again, in the case of the Legislative Council, two election cycles ago for those contesting in the case of the lower house, those ones that are contesting this time again. I do not have the exact figures but I do not think I have placed on record here but I think I talked to members after the conclusion last night. The government does not intend to progress this in the lower house this week, so we will have that fortnight before. I am happy to go and ask what information can be provided to those who are interested that is able to be provided.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Is it correct that parties and candidates who are standing for re-election can access up to 80 per cent of their notional per-vote funding in advance?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think I understand the question but I am not sure, so let me try to answer it and I am happy for you to repeat it if I have not answered it. Can someone who is contesting an election again who is a member of parliament access up to 80 per cent of funding that they would have been entitled to on their per-dollar vote at the last election, based on new figures? If that is as I understand the question, my advice is, yes, you can.

The way that works is how I outlined to the Hon. Dennis Hood previously, that if you qualify for that you get that 80 per cent paid in two tranches: 60 per cent at the date of the start of the capped expenditure period about nine months before the election, and that final tranche of the final 20 per cent at the issue of the writs.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Is it the case that the notional per-vote public funding is drawn from the previous relevant election?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is it is from the last time you were elected, so, as I have said before, that is drawn from the last time you were elected. In the case of the House of Assembly it would have been the election immediately prior, but for a group in the Legislative Council those people up for election at any given election coming up were elected essentially two elections ago or eight years before.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Is the per-vote public funding for continuing participants in parties $5.50 per vote? If that is the case, can the minister confirm that it would be easy enough to calculate the notional funding that each party and candidate would receive and that it would be appropriate to be able to provide that to the chamber today?

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can confirm for continuing members of a registered political party, I understand that it is the case that the funding that is proposed under this model would be $5 per 50 and then the 60 per cent and then the 20 per cent. I am sure it is calculated; I just do not have those in front of me at the moment. As I have said, I am more than happy to go away and between the time that this is here and a fortnight away (not next week but the week after) we discuss it there. I am happy to ask the minister's office who is responsible to see if they can provide those figures.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am sure we canvassed this issue yesterday extensively, but the questions that have just been asked are subject to some very important qualifications. There are values that apply, depending on whether you ran candidates in the upper house and the lower house, and so that 80 per cent that she refers to, for instance, would be capped for one in terms of what you can get back and would also rely on whether indeed you were actually running candidates in the lower house and therefore that figure would change based on the result of the lower house vote.

So when it comes to the upper house vote, whichever way you spin it, it is capped: there is a $500,000 cap and you cannot go higher than that. The question then is whether you are relying on your result also for the lower house, but you must make an application to the Electoral Commission to advise them that you are actually intending to run candidates in the lower house in order to be able to access the 80 per cent funding that would apply per candidate in the lower house up to the cap.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes. I am advised that is correct, in essence. That is, you would need to advise how you are intending to run because a lot of parties do not just run one candidate in the upper house: they run a number in the upper house and a combination, for a lot of parties, in the lower house as well.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just in terms of those notional values, then, you can have a ballpark figure in terms of everyone maximising the number of candidates they are going to run, but if you have someone who is sitting, for instance, in this chamber and they choose to run none, or run one, or run two, or run three—the figures might be different. So unless you are going to give a range of every single scenario that a party could possibly be contemplating, you are not actually going to be able to provide those values. You can provide the maximums potentially, but that is not in your hands in terms of what individual parties are going to do, based on whether they run in the upper house or the lower house.

What is clear is that, in the upper house, at least, you cannot get beyond the $500,000. The only time that beyond $500,000 comes into the equation is if you nominate and go through the process of applying to the commissioner and saying that you will be running candidates in the lower house. Then, based on the number, they will determine how much you are entitled to.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that that is essentially correct. It is a combination of both of those things.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Are in-kind efforts of a third party contributed to the third-party capped expenditure; for instance, if an organisation provided a boardroom in kind?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is: it depends. I will try to answer it as best I can. If need be, I am happy to bring back further advice because, as I said, we have time between the houses. I suspect the honourable member's colleagues in the other house will be interested in how this works, and we have more time.

As I said, my advice is that, in those circumstances, it depends. My advice is that if it may not be political expenditure there may not be an obligation. If it is not political expenditure under the definition of the act, my advice as to why it depends is that there is an interaction between exemptions in regulations and what is in the act. I am not going to be able to stand here and rule that this definitely is and that definitely is not, but it may well not be political expenditure.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I guess then in the same vein the volunteer efforts of a third party are capped as third-party expenditure?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is a volunteer is exempt from the definition of a donation. Once again, I am happy to see whether there is any further clarity that is needed, but the advice I have is a volunteer is exempt from the definition of a donation.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Is there a maximum number of third parties that can campaign for one political party?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is there is no maximum. I am not sure the expert panel will traverse that but I expect that would likely cause concern for someone in terms of the High Court's implied right to freedom of ability to engage in your political expression. There is not a maximum number that can campaign.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Following on from that, could therefore an infinite or indefinite number of third parties be newly created specifically for the purpose of campaigning in support of a singular or particular political party?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is there is an offence provision if a person knowingly participates directly or indirectly in a scheme to circumvent the prohibition or requirement under division 6 relating to political expenditure. There is not a cap on the number of groups or third parties that could campaign, but if you are involved in a scheme to deliberately try to circumvent there are provisions in the act to capture that, is my advice.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I know you have said previously that you will provide some clarity between the houses but in doing so I am just wanting some clarification as to how the government landed at some of the inclusions and exemptions, considering the in-kind and voluntary work has always been key to grassroot organisations. In particular, I think it is section 130A(1)(m) which is the provision of broadcasting. How did the government arrive at a non-commercial broadcasting service not being an in-kind donation if broadcasting still has an inherent value?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is this was an issue that was raised in public consultation. That particular provision that the honourable member refers to was raised in consultation in particular because, as I am advised, the ABC gives time and often, as I understand it, equal time to those involved in politics or in a campaign and obviously that is not designed to be captured under this scheme.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: In that same respect, is it true then that a community radio station could promote a candidate and it not be counted and similarly a community newspaper promote a single candidate and it not be counted?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is as long as they are not in the meaning of a commercial broadcasting service within the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 of the commonwealth.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can you please explain also for the chamber section 130(A)(1)(d) the payment of an amount in respect of a guarantee? Specifically, what are the circumstances which have previously arisen to require that inclusion?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that this has come from definitions that are in the New South Wales act. Again, this is one that in between the houses I am happy to find out the exact rationale. I do not have that with me at the moment, but it is a feature of the New South Wales act, I am advised. I am happy to provide more behind that rationale between the houses.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Just to circle back to the point that the honourable Leader of the Opposition made, so that we are crystal clear, there is no prohibition on volunteering to third-party organisations or, indeed, political parties as part of these changes?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that volunteering is one of those clear exemptions, yes. I think the honourable Leader of the Opposition has talked about volunteers being the lifeblood of many movements, but also political parties, so that is to be made clear as an exemption, I am advised, in terms of the scheme that we are talking about tonight.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Members will be pleased to hear that my six or seven I think I said I had left is now down to four or five, because a couple of them have been answered as answers have been given to the leader. This one is quite a specific one, Attorney, and it is not clear to me, so I would appreciate some insight on this one. Clause 27(7) talks about prescribed administrative expenditure. My question is: what is in and what is out? For instance, is buying a laptop prescribed administrative expenditure? Who decides that? Presumably it is the Electoral Commissioner, but how is that going to work in practice?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is the member asking about transitional administrative funding or administrative funding year on year?

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Year on year.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Year-on-year administrative funding is defined in clause 9(2) of the bill. It goes through:

administrative expenditure means expenditure relating to the administration, operation or management of a registered political party…or administrative or operational expenditure—

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Sorry, I will stop you there if I can. I understand that, but my question was more to clause 27(7). That talks about prescribed administrative expenditure.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that there is transitional funding to the new scheme and that applies in relation to that transitional funding, which I am advised is $200,000 for parties and $50,000 for non-party members. That clause is for that transitional funding to the scheme, is my advice.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Thank you. I will go back to my original question: are things like laptops in? What is it?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is it falls back on the definition of administrative expenditure that is in whatever clause that is—clause 9—but for the purposes of the transition to the new scheme is my advice.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just to be clear, are we talking about the funding that is provided to effectively enable parties and Independents to comply with—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: To transition?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Yes, that is right

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, my advice is that that is correct. The transition I think is to comply with the act that we are talking about at the moment.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I have a couple of questions around membership fees. The bill would cap the membership fees of a political party at a maximum of $250. That is correct. Is this allowing a workaround method for small donations to political parties, noting that party membership fees are tax deductible? Is there a risk of that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, no, that is not what the intention is at all. It is a recognition that political parties have a membership base and is providing the ability for people, as they currently do, to become members of that political party—those people who are, to their great credit, believing in the causes and the objects of the political party, and they do not just take their hard-earned cash but often spend many hours on very cold nights in community halls attending all sorts of branch meetings to continue to do that. So it is designed to make sure that members can continue to do that. I am advised one of the reasons that there is a cap in there is to try to encourage it not to become any sort of workaround for that purpose.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Could a political party allow for multiple memberships for one individual to effectively collect greater than $250 from each individual?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is you can only have one membership per person.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the minister advise what those membership fees collected can be used for? Is there a specific definition? Does it have to be used for admin versus campaigning?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is there is broadly no restriction on what it can be used on. However, I know as a former Labor Party state secretary—and I have two other of my colleagues behind me who are also former Labor Party state secretaries—

The Hon. R.B. Martin: A stack of secretaries. The collective noun is a stack.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We have a stack of secretaries of the Labor Party in here. In my experience, the membership fees that are paid in political parties do not go near to covering the costs of the membership organisation in servicing those members. So even allowing for $250, certainly in my experience it is unlikely that that membership fee that is paid covers the costs of providing services to the members of your party.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Is there a possibility for the imposition of levies against party members for the purposes of political funding?

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

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Is there any definition of 'levy' in the bill or the act?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is there is not a definition in the act, but it does allow for such a thing.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: We are on clause 1, but looking ahead to clause 31, Attorney—a few more than one, but not too many more—this is the part that deals with policy development expenditure and it lists a number of things that are included, specifically conferences, seminars, meetings, etc. My question is: what is not included? Because it is so broad that on my first reading, it was hard to think of anything that is not included, so what is not included?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that, for example, one thing that is not included is political campaign expenditure, and very deliberately.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Just on that point—and I do understand it is in the act, but for completeness—can the minister detail what then is regarded as political campaign expenditure, just so that we are clear on the distinctions?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that it remains unchanged, so it is the same definition for 'political expenditure' that we currently operate on under the regime that has been in place since 2014. I am happy to try to find that and read it out, but if it gives the honourable member some comfort, that is the same definition that has previously been used.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Is there a limit or a restriction on who can contribute via a levy to a political party?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. My advice is the intention is it is a member of parliament, but this is one of the areas that we will double-check to confirm between the houses.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 18 passed.

Clauses 19 to 21.

The CHAIR: I point out to the committee that these clauses, being money clauses, will be printed in erased type and the bill transmitted to the House of Assembly. Standing order 298 provides that no question shall be put in committee upon any such clause. The message transmitting the bill to the House of Assembly is required to indicate that these clauses are deemed necessary to the bill.

Clause 20.

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

Amendment No 1 [AG–1]—

Page 35, line 35 to page 36, line 7 [clause 20, inserted section 130PE(2)]—Delete subsection (2) and substitute:

(2) The Electoral Commissioner may require the repayment of any amount under section 130PA to 130PD (inclusive) received by an agent in respect of an election (whether a general election or otherwise) if—

(a) in all cases—the registered political party, candidate or group for which the agent is appointed does not contest the election, unless, in the case of a candidate or group, the Electoral Commissioner is satisfied that the candidate or group has good reason for not contesting the election; or

(b) in the case of the agent of a registered political party, candidate or group, other than—

(i) a party at least 1 member of which is a member of Parliament (or was a member at the time of the dissolution of the Parliament in relation to the election); or

(ii) a candidate who is a member of Parliament (or was a member at the time of the dissolution of the Parliament in relation to the election); or

(iii) a group a member of which is a member of Parliament (or was a member at the time of the dissolution of the Parliament in relation to the election),

there is no entitlement by virtue of section 130Q(1) or (2) for payment in respect of votes given in the election to be made to the agent; or

(c) in the case of the agent 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.

I am not going to speak particularly at length on this. We traversed this, I think, at the very opening this morning of the committee stage, but this gives effect to the issues that were raised and ventilated before we closed just before 9.30 last night. I know they have been subject to a lot of discussion between parties and members last night and this morning.

As I said at the start of the day, I think it reflects well upon how this Legislative Council works and our processes to make sure that we are taking into account what is a new scheme. It is something that we have not had certainly in this state, Australia or perhaps in other places in the world to make sure it operates properly, so I commend the amendment to the council.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I rise to indicate that the Greens of course support the amendment. I do want to echo the Attorney's comments. I do think it demonstrates the power of this chamber and the role that we play in terms of reviewing legislation. We have been working through this bill in, I think, a methodical way. In the course of that process, issues have been identified and we have worked together collectively to try to fix those problems, so I think that is a credit to the way the Legislative Council can work together to address issues. Might I also say that I think the process we have undertaken tonight and indeed yesterday and earlier in the day has been very useful in terms of helping us all to get our heads around the details of what is a significant reform.

Amendment carried.

Clauses 22 to 25 passed.

Clauses 26 and 27.

The CHAIR: I point out to the committee that these clauses, being money clauses, will be printed in erased type and the bill transmitted to the House of Assembly. Standing order 298 provides that no question shall be put in committee upon any such clause. The message transmitting the bill to the House of Assembly is required to indicate that these clauses are deemed necessary to the bill.

Clauses 28 to 30 passed.

Clause 31.

The CHAIR: I point out to the committee that this clause, being a money clause, will be printed in erased type and the bill transmitted to the House of Assembly. Standing order 298 provides that no question shall be put in committee upon any such clause. The message transmitting the bill to the House of Assembly is required to indicate that this clause is deemed necessary to the bill.

Clauses 32 to 37 passed.

Clause 38.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: This will be the last question from me. This clause and also another clause talks about what happens with loans and specifically who can take a loan and who cannot. I am not clear about how that works, so I wonder if the Attorney would outline for us basically who can and who cannot take a loan and under what circumstances.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is incumbents cannot take out a loan other than from a registered financial institution, in which case they can do so. New entrants to the system effectively are permitted to take out loans from non-registered financial institutions but only up to a value of $5,000, corresponding with their ability to receive donations of that amount, is my advice.

Clause passed.

Clauses 39 to 55 passed.

Clause 56.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the Attorney just give an indication as to what timeframe there will be for the registration processes for third parties?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will try to get this right. My advice is if you are an ongoing registered participant then it is ongoing, but for new registrants my advice is you register at the time you intend to become involved in the system, and that is that you cannot register within 30 days of an election having occurred but you need to register within 45 days of the next election occurring.

Clause passed.

Clauses 57 to 59 passed.

Clause 60.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the Attorney outline to the chamber who determines the authorised officer for investigations?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is it is the Electoral Commissioner or someone the Electoral Commissioner has delegated to have that function to authorise.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Therefore, in doing so, can the Attorney guarantee that there will be independence given to potentially investigating other political parties?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is it is the Electoral Commissioner's responsibility to do this. We all place our trust in the independence of the Electoral Commissioner, in Australia much more so, and in South Australia particularly much more so, than many other jurisdictions of the world, time after time. It works pretty well and I think all of us here and the rest of us in this state have faith in that independence in producing a result that is a result that the electors have intended. For that very reason, I think we rightly do so and we do not have any other choice because that is how it has worked in the past, and it worked very well for this state.

Clause passed.

Clauses 61 to 63 passed.

Clause 64.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 83, line 21—After 'this Act' insert:

, including the effectiveness of the amendments in achieving transparency, accountability, integrity and public confidence in the electoral process and its participants,

I will speak to both amendments together and move them separately. Both amendments relate to the review provision. I think it is fair to say there have been some reservations about this bill and, when I spoke about this, I spoke about the need for caution and certainly the reservations that I have had in relation to this legislation. That comes down to the fact that we are dealing with something that we have never dealt with before—it is new.

Overwhelmingly, whilst all of us share I think the same position in relation to wanting to take money out of politics, there is nothing to base this on. So we are, I suppose, in unchartered waters in terms of the proposal before us. It has also been difficult to wrap our head around some of the complexities because there is nothing to really test it against. Effectively, no-one will know the success or otherwise of it until after one or two election cycles if, indeed, it is going to achieve the intent of the government who has advanced this bill—and I say that this is a government proposal. The government has advanced this proposal, and we just do not know. My concern remains in relation to the issues that I have already outlined on the record.

I think as far as the review is concerned, what I have attempted to do in effect in moving these two amendments is twofold. We cannot, as I said during my second reading, bind a future government to anything, but where we do have a review that is prescribed in the legislation then what we can do as far as practicable in the legislation is to ensure that it meets the actual objectives that the government says this bill is intended to achieve.

They are around transparency, accountability, integrity and public confidence in the processes that are being put in place. I just think it is important to highlight that in terms of the review that will be conducted to ensure that they are—they are the objectives of the bill and so it seeks to make it crystal clear that there is every intent by this parliament to ensure that that review canvasses those issues appropriately and thoroughly.

The second part—and I will move that in a second amendment. Often we see reviews take place, and they are independent reviews, which is what we want, but there is no response from government, so they could put this in and it could be a complete success or an abysmal failure, and there is nothing binding them to do anything about it. So at the very least—and this is in line with amendments that I have moved to other pieces of legislation where the government has been somewhat belligerent and refused to provide responses—yes, indeed.

The intent is really to force the government of the day to actually respond to that independent review. If you are going to have a review and you are saying one of the most important elements of this scheme is its review after its operation, then it is obviously equally fitting that we receive a response from the government in relation to those issues.

If it is an independent review and they find that things are not working in favour of minor parties or Independents, if they find things that are working are too heavily weighted even under this scheme to the major parties, all those criticisms that have been raised and fleshed out and thrashed out in here and publicly will be addressed by the review. The first thing is to ensure that they are addressed by the review and the second thing is to ensure that those findings and recommendations are not ignored by the government of the day.

The second amendment, which I will move after this one, seeks to ensure that within six months—and I have put six months, that is a reasonable timeframe—after receiving any report or receiving the report into the scheme, the government is then required to respond to that and tell us what it is that they intend to do to actually address the shortcomings or otherwise of the scheme that is being proposed.

I have spoken to this at length during my second reading and I do not intend to do so any further now, but I just place on the record again that there has been a level of caution but also anxiety and reservation about this bill. Clearly, it is going to get through, but I do not think what we need to ensure is that, given everything that has been said, once we get to that point where it has been tested and there is data and modelling and all the rest of it, and we have had one election cycle to test it on, there is an appropriate response in terms of its efficacy. It is for that reason that I have moved amendment No. 1 and amendment No. 2.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for bringing these amendments to the chamber and I can indicate that the government will be supporting both of the amendments. As the honourable member has pointed out, this is an important bit of legislation that we are putting in place. How elections work is a critical feature of the laws that we then pass and how we are governed. In fact, it is fundamental to our society in South Australia. I went through the reasons we think this is important reform in my second reading speech. The idea of taking the money out of politics, making it a contest of ideas, I will not relitigate.

We think these are reasonable measures to put in place, given how important the scheme is. I put on the record that there is good reason to have confidence in how the scheme has been drafted. As Attorney-General, this has been subject to a huge amount of work over 2½ years now. Some of the finest legal minds have turned to how this works and how it will operate with the current scheme. There are officers from the Attorney-General's Department who will not get part of their life back after the contributions they have made to this over many months and the last couple of years.

In addition to that, it has been subject to a huge amount of scrutiny and debate since it was released some months ago in June. Many groups and organisations have had the chance to input and their input has been taken on board, but on top of that there has been an expert panel report of eminent experts in this field, providing their views on the draft legislation.

I accept that it is important and ought to be subject to having a level of review and perhaps even a level of review over and above what other pieces of legislation have, but I think we can all have a fair degree of confidence that this has been exceptionally thoroughly thought out and scrutinised. Even some of the details, as our processes today demonstrated, are making sure it works as well as it possibly can.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I indicate that the Greens are also supportive of the amendment and I thank the Hon. Connie Bonaros for putting it forward. One of the issues that was very important from the Greens' perspective in engaging with the government is that it had taken into consideration the views of civil society groups or democracy groups. One of the key things they were concerned about was the need for a review to make sure we had the balance right. I welcome that inclusion in the new bill.

I think the Hon. Connie Bonaros's amendment enhances that slightly by ensuring there will be a formal response made. I also note the undertaking the Attorney has given in this place in the debate yesterday, where he said that, if issues come forward as part of that review, the government is willing to address those. I give an indication that I am very open to wanting to address those as well on behalf of the Greens and work collaboratively with the government to make sure we get it right.

There has been lots of discussion about the risk proposition here. No question, when you make a significant change to the way our democracy works it is high risk, but with high risk comes high reward. This is a change that has the capacity to strengthen faith in our democratic institutions at a time when they are under significant threat, particularly if we look at what is happening in other places around the world. It is a timely reform and one that I think will have a lot of support in the broader community.

I also note that one of the themes that has come through very consistently in this discussion over the last few days has been the desire of the parliament collectively to ensure that we encourage new voices in our political system, that we do not disadvantage small parties or Independents and that we do not erect further barriers to new parties coming through or make things more difficult for smaller parties. The amendment make sense. I see that you are winding me up, Chair—thank you.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I rise to indicate that the opposition supports these amendments. It is pertinent to note that the member in her amendment has specifically stated 'the Special Minister of State'. I wonder whether we would like to be so specific on that or perhaps it is better placed to be 'the minister'. There may be a situation where there is no longer a titled special minister of state and if that is the case perhaps it might be that the Attorney-General—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: Machinery of government changes will fix that.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I am just making that point that it might be something to look at between the houses.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Obviously, for the record, I am happy to defer to the Attorney-General, who has advice available to him, but we are picking up on the reading that is already in the review clause in clause 64, yes?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The honourable member is picking up on language already used in the bill itself. If, for example, it comes down to this legislation passing, the review to come and let's say there is no-one with the designation of special minister of state, it does not get the government of the day out of having to provide those responses to those reports; it will be whoever has responsibility for the bill, effectively, or the responsibility of those functions. A government could not simply not have a special minister of state to try to get around having to provide responsibility for the bill, for example.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 83, after line 38—Insert:

(7) The Special Minister of State must, within 6 sitting days of the expiration of 6 months after receiving the report under this section cause a report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament setting out, in relation to each recommendation in the report—

(a) details of any action taken or proposed to be taken in consequence of the recommendation; or

(b) if no action has been taken or is proposed to be taken in consequence of the recommendation—giving reasons for not taking action or proposing to take action.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (22:57): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.