Bills

Electoral (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 November 2024.)

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (16:04): Disrespectful, undemocratic and, quite frankly, rude: that is the most polite way that I can describe the manner in which the government has conducted itself in ramming through these electoral reforms in the final week of parliament this year. No time for consideration, no time for consultation and no time for proper debate on these issues. We saw this exact same scenario play out just last sitting week, during the passage of the donation reform bill.

During that debate, the government attempted to ram through a bill mired with issues—issues which were due to a lack of ventilation and a lack of consultation. It was only through the due diligence of this council that these issues were in fact picked up. I ask what further problems will be created by rushing this legislation through that are yet to be realised? As I will note again in this speech, you have an opposition and a crossbench who are willing to listen and to work with the government on electoral and campaigning reform.

There are aspects of this bill that the opposition supports which stem from recommendations listed in the 2022 State Election Report. This includes allowing ordinary votes to be counted on polling day in order to help speed up the counting process; better consistency with commonwealth legislation regarding itinerant electors; electronic lodgement of certain documents; extending the timeframe for postal vote applications; and allowing any elector to vote pre-poll by removing the early voting criteria but shortening that pre-poll timeframe to one week.

There are further amendments outlined in this bill that we can also agree on. Ensuring that each district has at least one pre-poll location is one such measure. This assists in providing ease of access in every electorate. Reforming federal election regulations to be in line with state election guidelines around banning the use of corflutes on public infrastructure is another measure which the opposition is in full support of, and reducing waste and providing South Australian voters with consistency in messaging. In addition, powers to better protect staff from the Electoral Commission of South Australia near polling places, regulating the use of AI-generated material which could mislead voters, telephone-assisted voting, and administrative changes on authorisations and nominations.

However, there are some aspects of concern with some of these amendments that do require highlighting. The decision to ban the ability of parties to send out postal vote applications (PVAs) is one such measure. Many voters, in particular older electors across Labor, Liberal and marginal seats, rely on postal votes and the PVA process. I know of offices which have hundreds if not thousands of constituents who utilise the PVAs they send out. In fact, they do not just utilise this service, they rely on this service in order to assist with obtaining a postal vote, particularly if they are not computer-savvy. They expect these forms to be delivered to them and contact their local electorate office directly if they do not receive one. To remove this service is a travesty and borders on voter disenfranchisement.

Additionally, the government proposes to remove many aspects of campaigning which are critical in connecting with prospective voters, such as automated calls. Whilst in principle we are not against reforming the way that campaigns are run, it is important that candidates and parties are provided avenues to directly connect with the constituency.

I find it highly hypocritical that the government has brought in these proposed changes, but at the same time are expanding their marketing reach. Honourable members in this chamber are being curtailed in their ability to exercise democratic freedoms as this government is establishing the government advertising and insights hub to do this on their behalf and offering to pay up to $429,000 for a potential executive director through the use of hard-earned taxpayers' money. While there are certain aspects of electioneering that the opposition believes are essential, we will not stand in the way of this reform which compounds the frustrations on the speed in which this bill is being rushed through this parliament even further.

The government has an opposition and a crossbench which are willing to work with them, but the government has decided to ignore them, ignore us and ignore due process. In saying that, the opposition will not be supporting the amendment from the Hon. Rob Simms to reduce the voting age to 16 and to reinstate federal corflutes at the next election—to continue federal corflutes, I should say, until the next election.

The Greens are rushing through an amendment to an already rushed bill with zero understanding of the consequences. The development that an individual goes through between the ages of 16 and 18 is monumental, and voting is and should remain the right of all adult South Australians.

Furthermore, the opposition will not be supporting the amendments moved by the Hon. Connie Bonaros. Whilst we appreciate the sentiment the reality is that due to public funding Independent candidates will see a dramatic increase in resources for campaigning, some of which will no doubt be used to increase overall their name ID. So the opposition are of the opinion that the ballot paper itself should remain free of candidate promotion.

I do want to place on the record, obviously, that I have an amendment which I have filed and which I will also be moving. This amendment will strengthen the voting public's access to a pre-poll during standard business hours.

In closing, whilst the opposition does have some concerns on several provisions, we do broadly support the Electoral (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2024, but I do look forward to the committee stage where I will be asking the leader a series of questions.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (16:10): I rise to speak on the government's Electoral (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2024. This bill is primarily concerned with implementing the recommendations from the Electoral Commissioner's report into the 2022 state election. However, the bill also contains several other state government initiatives, including a ban on robocalls, regulation of artificially generated electoral content and prohibiting the display of federal electoral corflutes.

The recommendations from the Electoral Commissioner's report are predominantly concerned with improving the democratic process for new electors, postal voters and itinerant electors. There is also an allowance for the electronic lodgement of certain documents and an allowance for ordinary votes to be counted on polling day under tight security as well as the removal of political involvement in the postal vote application process. These measures are commendable steps towards enhancing democratic participation, ensuring a more efficient electoral process aligning with our core democratic principles.

In addition to this, the government has also proposed further amendments to the Electoral Act, including the provision of telephone-assisted voting for sight or motor-impaired electors, which is both commendable and worthwhile. The removal of requirements for Independent candidates to provide a physical address to authorise electoral material provides appropriate privacy protections for Independent candidates.

However, the amendments to printing additional information on ballot papers for Independents appears to be a rather punitive measure. Under this proposal Independent candidates will no longer be able to print up to three additional words on their ballot paper, thereby restricting Independent candidates from designating themselves as an Independent for a particular political cause or movement, such as the 'Independent for peace' or the 'Independent for human rights'. While removing this allowance brings Independents into line with the restrictions on all other candidates, it is difficult to justify this measure as one that upholds or protects democratic principles. Instead it appears to impose unnecessary restrictions on Independent candidates expressing their values and affiliations.

Another initiative proposed by the government is the broadening of powers to deal with disruptive behaviour at electoral events, which the government wants to be extended to capture disruptive behaviour that occurs not only within voting and counting centres but also within the vicinity of these centres. Safeguarding access to voting is commendable, and deliberate disruptions of the electoral process warrant clear deterrence. However, it is crucial to ensure that these measures do not infringe on the fundamental right to peaceful protest or the freedom of political movement.

Another initiative within this bill is the proposed regulation of electoral advertisements generated by artificial intelligence and the prohibition of deepfakes. The growing prevalence of digital technology and the increasing sophistication of deepfakes pose a serious risk to the integrity of political discourse. Manipulating a person's likeness to create convincing but false content undermines political trust and can cause significant harm. We should all be concerned about the use of deepfakes in the production and distribution of content which is designed to persuade us into believing that a simulated image is reality. This is particularly concerning for political content where digital manipulation can be used for strategic and persuasive purposes to influence public opinion.

In response to these growing concerns the government has proposed a $10,000 penalty for a body corporate and a $5,000 penalty for a person who distributes artificially generated electoral advertisements that contain a depiction of a simulated person performing an act that the real person depicted in the depiction did not perform. No-one wants to be depicted doing or saying something they did not do or say, especially when the depicted statement or action is not only untrue but also causes embarrassment or humiliation.

Any digital content that is intentionally created to cause harm should be restricted and penalised by law. However, not all digital content is created to deceive or cause harm. In fact, there is a lot of political content that is satirical and parodies political figures, and there is the potential for such material to be captured under the broad legislative definitions of depiction and simulation proposed by this bill.

Finally, there is a proposal to ban corflutes during federal election campaigns to match the ban imposed during South Australian elections. While the removal of corflutes marks the end of a longstanding tradition, it also reflects the evolving nature of political campaigning in an increasingly digital era. Political messaging now resides in the complex, dynamic and contested realm of online discourse, and I support the ban of corflutes at federal election campaigns as well.

In principle, I do support the bill. However, I will also be supporting the amendment put forward by the Hon. Connie Bonaros and also the Liberal amendments. I will not be supporting the Greens' amendments.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (16:15): I rise to speak on the Electoral (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2024. As we have heard, the bill seeks to implement recommendations from the Electoral Commissioner's report on the 2022 state election and the Bragg by-election, along with several additional measures.

As we have heard, key changes include modifying the timeframe for postal votes (something I agree with), providing ECSA with greater flexibility to conduct certain processes electronically (another good move), removing fines for individuals of no fixed addresses, allowing enrolments up to and on voting day, and of course eliminating the outdated requirement to display the name of a printer on campaign materials. The bill also reduces the early voting period from two weeks to one, and I understand the number of early voting centres will be increased to accommodate demand.

I note that during an election it might not seem like a lot, but a lot depends on the news cycle of the day. So, aside from being an issue of convenience, there is every possibility as well that that longer timeframe influences a vote when it occurs so early before actual voting day rather than closer.

For me, that in and of itself is another justification for shortening that timeframe because, if someone is likely to go and vote two weeks before and there is something in the press that day that is not particularly complimentary of one party over another or one minor party over another or one Independent over another, that certainly can have some bearing on a person's decision on that day, and it is worth remembering that that is not actually the polling day. For me, that is another justification for shortening that period to a more reasonable timeframe.

I note that the opposition does have amendments to those particular provisions of the bill and I do not see that they are problematic in any way. I think they state the obvious basically in terms of the opening hours not being less than what has been stipulated in there but certainly not limited to that. I would expect that you would find that those voting booths would be open during those hours in any event, but that amendment seeks to make that clear, although we will get to that further in the committee stage of the debate.

In addition, the bill introduces several measures not arising from the report but aligned with electoral reform. That includes a ban on robocalls, fulfilling a Labor election commitment. It is not just a Labor election commitment. I think there were many of us calling for the ban on robocalls way before Labor made that one of their election commitments, given the barrage of calls that we saw when those first took off. There is a requirement to protect candidate privacy by no longer mandating the publication of home addresses. This is particularly important for those Independents who choose to run. We all know the importance of that, especially given that the rest of us are able to apply to have our addresses suppressed.

There is a ban on deepfakes, ensuring the integrity of campaign materials. I do note the point that the Hon. Sarah Game just made. I am glad that this does not extend to thought bubbles because I quite like those, but I agree in principle that deepfakes, artificial intelligence, can be very damaging, and should not be used for those purposes at all in any context, let alone an election campaign.

Restrictions on the display of federal election corflutes on public roads and related areas aligning with the reforms passed for state elections earlier this year ahead of the Dunstan by-election. I do note that the Greens are proposing for the corflute restrictions to commence on 1 July 2025 after the next federal election, and with some irony because I think last time we debated this issue it was only me who was trying to save the corflutes, but this time it is my friends in the Greens.

When you are from a minor party or an Independent, I have always argued that there is a place for corflutes. They do have an important purpose because we just simply do not have the means of the major parties and particularly on election day. I note we have preserved their use on election day. They serve a very important purpose at election booths, and that has been preserved.

We do know, though, that corflutes after all are not biodegradable and take hundreds of years—hundreds of years—to decompose. Members may recall that after my frustration at banning corflutes last time I moved an amendment earlier this year to restrict the use of federal election corflutes to designated areas in line with the state ban.

I did that on the same day that everybody in here was patting themselves on the back for their amazing work on the ban on plastics, and I think it is fair to say that proposal was met with resistance and a moment of panic across the chamber, but it seems in hindsight that my suggestion was not only reasonable but very forward thinking. I am pleased that we found a way to work around the restrictions that applied at the time and used our plastics laws that everybody was raving about that day, that everyone was taking credit for, to actually propose that ban.

That was not successful at the time. I think everybody said that they would go away to consult with their relevant federal counterparts. It appears that they have, and they have come back here with some positions. I do note on that point, though, that I will not be supporting the Hon. Robert Simms' position, and also note that I have filed an amendment to this bill opposing the government's proposal to amend section 62 of the Electoral Act, which seeks to remove the ability of Independent candidates to include up to three additional descriptive words after the term 'Independent' on the ballot paper.

I will speak to this a little bit now because I think that is a very important provision in the existing act. In 2013, there were amendments moved when the Hon. John Darley was here, and the moves at the time, from memory, were to reduce the words from five to three as a compromise and, at the same time, it introduced the concept of grouping.

I think it is very important to bear in mind and to remember that for Independents, unlike minor parties and groups, their name only appears under the line on the ballot paper. You have your above the line votes and your below the line votes, and below the line is 'Independent Joe Smith, anti-nuclear'. That might be what they are running for, and they can use that sort of description. The reason that compromise was reached was that it was a very important reflection of the fact that the Independents are at a huge disadvantage compared to the major parties and, indeed, those minor parties who have the ability to be named above the line.

To use an obvious example, I have been through three iterations of my former employer's history in this place over a very long time, so I can use the Nick Xenophon example. I have used the Colin Shearing example in discussions that I have had with members. You might remember somebody's name, or you might remember the issue they stand for, but you will not necessarily remember both, and so it was levelling the playing field, noting that they could not appear above the line.

Above the line we have our party name and we have our names listed. Below the line, when you just have a name, you are relying on the fact that people are going to remember who Jan Smith is without that reminder of what Jan Smith stands for. That is the purpose that those descriptor words have always served.

If I said to you 'Colin Shearing' you may not know that Colin Shearing had a position on shop trading hours, but if I said, 'Colin Shearing, shop trading hours,' I think you would know who I was talking about

The Hon. R.A. Simms: He should set up a party.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Well, he could set up a party but he may not want to set up a party, and he does not have to set up a party under the current rules, and that is the very reason why we had these rules in place. Of course, thinking back to my own position in this place, when my former boss started in this place he was an Independent. He was not grouped and he was not a party. He was Nick Xenophon, and he was 'no pokies'.

I might not remember the name Nick Xenophon—I would have to be living under a rock not to—but I might remember 'no pokies', and that prompts me to remember who it is that we are talking about. It is the issue that that person stands for where those descriptor words serve their purpose. I think it is fundamentally important that Independents maintain the ability to do that, to have that descriptor there.

I do note, though, and very importantly, that in the case where let's say you have somebody who wants to be a little bit cheeky and use—I will use myself as an example—they might want to call themselves 'Jan Smith, SA's Best.' If they have used a part of another existing party's name, then the second part of those provisions that the bill seeks to strike out actually allow the commissioner to reject such an application. If you had 'Jan Smith' and she wanted to put, I don't know, 'Wacky Labor' as her two descriptors, she would not be able to because the word 'Labor' is already used to describe a political party.

If you had Peter Smith and he wanted to use 'Conservative Liberal' that would also be knocked out on the basis that 'Liberal' attaches to an existing party. So there were already protections there built into the legislation to prevent individuals from using names to effectively try to trick people into voting for someone thinking that they were voting for an actual party. Sorry about the wacky part—

The Hon. R.B. Martin interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Martin, stop badgering the Hon. Ms Bonaros.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: That is the reason why back in 2013, when this section was last amended, there was some acknowledgement of the fact that these descriptors were actually very important to Independents, and so rather than eliminate them altogether we reduced the descriptor words from five to three, but the government is now proposing to eliminate those descriptor words altogether.

I know minor parties and Independents have been given a leg up in the other reforms that we have seen in this bill, but I do not think that detracts from the need to be able to maintain these descriptor words so that people can prompt the public when they are voting on the issues that they support.

It is for that reason that we should not lose sight of the inherent disadvantages faced by Independent candidates, who are already relegated to below the line positions on the ballot paper who may not want to group themselves with somebody else, or indeed form a party no matter how big or small, The importance that those words play, restricting the ability of Independents to provide additional information to voters, does compound their challenges and further risks, in my view, of disenfranchising those who choose to stand outside of the party system.

It is for these reasons that I will be moving those amendments. There are plenty of examples we could give, but with those words I indicate for the record at this stage that it is my intention to (a) support in principle the position of the opposition when it comes to early voting, (b) I do not support the issue of the corflutes, and (c) just to disappoint the Hon. Rob Simms a little further, I certainly do not support lowering the voting age to 16 or 17. With those words, I look forward to the committee stage debate.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:30): I rise to speak in favour of the Electoral (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2024. I am pleased to see this bill come before us, as it contains many changes which will help update and improve the accessibility of our electoral system. Indeed, I commend the Electoral Commission of South Australia for their work in identifying areas of improvement and recognise that the government has taken up many of these as part of this bill.

At the heart of the changes to the electoral act before us is a recognition that our legislation is out of step with the current realities of the world we live in and the needs of voters. Indeed, we have seen many elections over the last few years where many people have voted early. Those votes have not been counted on election night and it can create a false impression around the views of electors and, indeed, those results whilst the vote is still being counted. I think most people in the community would welcome this as a commonsense change.

There are also some important measures within the legislation that I submit to you will help protect the integrity of our elections. These include measures such as banning robocalls and regulating the use of artificial intelligence in election advertisements. Indeed, on the issue of robocalls, the Greens have been supportive of banning that for many years.

I remember during the dying days of the Marshall government there was an electoral reform bill that came to this place. I think the then shadow attorney-general, leader of the Labor Party in this place, put forward an amendment to ban robocalls, which was inserted into the act. The Greens supported that. It passed the upper house, but then my recollection is that the bill languished in the lower house because the Liberal Party did not want to bring in that change in the lead-up to the state election. That was disappointing, because robocalls are something that I think undermine the public confidence in our elections. They are very unpopular and they are irritating for a lot of electors, so I think getting rid of robocalls is something that will be welcomed by many in the community.

A number of elements of the bill will make it easier for South Australians to vote, and I think that is a really good thing. Before I delve much further into the key elements of the bill, I will outline the basis of two of the amendments that the Greens will be moving today. We recognise that fundamental to this bill is the intention to make South Australia's electoral system more inclusive and better able to engage with the public, particularly young people. Some of the provisions of the legislation I think will make it easier for young people to vote, and that is a good thing.

However, one of the omissions, I think, is the failure to act on lowering the voting age. We are not proposing that voting be compulsory for 16 or 17 year olds. Rather, we are suggesting that voting for that cohort be optional. Sixteen and 17 year olds in our state are already able to work. They pay taxes, they can get a provisional licence and they can even join the army, but they are not able to vote and have their say on the direction of the government in our state.

I heard the Leader of the Opposition say in her remarks that young people's brains are still developing and they are not able to make decisions in that regard. Let's not forget that in South Australia the age of criminal responsibility is 10, so we are saying to these young people that they can be held criminally responsible under our laws, but they are not able to actually determine their views on politics when they are 16 or 17 years old. I find that a ridiculous proposition. Surely, people who are paying taxes, people who are out in the workforce, people who are engaging as citizens, should have a right to vote.

It is the Greens' hope that were a change like this to become law, then political parties would become much more responsive to the views of young people. If we look at issues like the housing crisis, if we look at issues like the climate crisis, these are long-term policy challenges. The impacts of the decisions that we make are intergenerational. The Labor and Liberal parties are doing a woeful job in terms of addressing those challenges in a meaningful way. Maybe one way to reorient the politics of this place is to enfranchise those young people. They deserve a voice.

I also recognise the work of the government in terms of civics education—that is great, but what better way to improve the engagement with young people in our politics than through giving them the opportunity to vote on an optional basis. I think it would be welcomed by a number of young people. Indeed, I recognise that the Commissioner for Children and Young People in our state has been doing a lot of advocacy around this.

I will briefly turn to the second amendment that the Greens are moving. This amendment delays the provisions relating to changes regarding the placement of corflutes for federal elections. When the government put forward draft legislation, it wrote to political parties asking their views. It wrote to the Greens party asking the views of the party organisation. The election campaign committee had a discussion regarding the bill and provided some feedback, which was the basis of the amendment that I am moving. Indeed, it has been the concern, through some of the feedback that I have received, that making this change so close to the federal election, given the federal election is only a few months away, could pose some challenges, so the amendment reflects that.

I now turn to some of the provisions within the bill that are informed by the recommendations of the Electoral Commission. One of the alterations to the existing act is that voters will now be able to enrol to vote on the actual day of the election. Voters will no longer be required to enrol beforehand; they can enrol up to and on the election day. I think that is a really positive advancement for democracy in our state. It will bring South Australia into line with other jurisdictions and it will help young people actually exercise their vote because we know, for a lot of reasons, young people may not always be on the roll.

We know also that young people are more likely to rent, they are more likely to be transient in terms of their address, and so giving them the flexibility to enrol right up until election day I think is a really positive advancement. After all, we should be doing what we can to encourage people to vote and exercise their democratic right.

Another alteration, in terms of change to the status quo, that I note within the bill is the change to the act allowing South Australians to vote early without needing to sign a declaration and without needing to provide a reason. I think a lot of South Australians who exercise their early vote do so without necessarily having a compelling reason.

It used to be that if you were going to cast your vote early, you needed to demonstrate that you were working or attending a wedding or had some significant event that you could not get out of. I think, in recent years, more and more South Australians have sought to avail themselves of the early voting provisions. It makes sense to relax those requirements to reflect what is actually happening.

I am also pleased to see amendments relating to itinerant electors—that is, people who are homeless or those who might be travelling within Australia. This bill exempts electors who have no fixed address from compulsory voting. It also allows them to stay enrolled, even if they are outside of South Australia for longer than a month. This is an important step as a compulsory voting requirement, which I am strongly supportive of, but this can be difficult for someone to comply with if they are itinerant, if they are someone who is homeless, or if indeed they are travelling interstate.

We support moves to encourage itinerant electors to stay enrolled and accommodations for this cohort to prevent them being punished for their lack of permanent address. Of course, my views on addressing the homelessness crisis are well known in this place and I think the government and indeed the Electoral Commission should do what they can to engage homeless voters.

We also support the changes to postal voting that come with the bill. Sadly, Australia Post is becoming increasingly unreliable. It is important for our laws to reflect that. The bill goes further to make inherently sensible changes, allowing postal vote applications to be made online or over the phone, rather than needing to be made via the post.

Also, it stops political parties from being able to control those postal mail-outs, which again is something that I think is not really in the spirit of democracy in our state. There are some important changes here, too, allowing sight-impaired and motor-impaired voters to use telephone-assisted voting. That is another really positive change that we think will help people.

Of course, there is a final change that will allow absent voting, simplifying the process for voting outside of your electorate. I have heard stories of people going into polling booths and not being able to vote because they do not live in that particular area. Again, it makes sense to streamline that, so I welcome the government taking action on that.

In closing, the Greens are supportive of the provisions within the bill, but we would like to see the government go further to give 16 year olds and 17 year olds the right to vote. Just recently, this parliament made history when we became the first place in the world to ban political donations. We could become the first state in Australia to give 16 year olds and 17 year olds the right to vote. I urge the government to consider this sensible suggestion from the Greens and to show some leadership in that regard.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (16:41): I thank honourable members for their considered contributions on this important bill. I know that there have been questions indicated for the committee stage. For the benefit of the committee stage, I might just indicate what the government's position will be, as we go through the bill, on amendments that are put forward. In relation to the amendment from the Liberal opposition in regard to the time for early voting, for very similar reasons as those the Hon. Connie Bonaros outlined we have no problem with that, so we will be supporting that provision.

In relation to the amendment that was put forward by the Hon. Connie Bonaros, we hate to disappoint but we will not be supporting that amendment. It is our view that if you run as an Independent you are an Independent. If you wish to have an issue named that you support in there, then it is your right to go through the registration, as many others have done, for establishing a party.

In relation to the provisions put forward by the Hon. Rob Simms, again I hate to disappoint but, like a number of other times when the Hon. Rob Simms' predecessor put up amendments in relation to the voting age, we will not be supporting those. Having supported what was a Liberal private member's bill in relation to banning corflutes in a state election, I am sure it will come as no surprise that we will not be supporting the amendment to have them in a federal election.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: In the interest of time, I thought it might be useful for me to outline the Greens' position on the amendments that we are going to consider a little bit later on. I forgot to do so in my second reading remarks. I indicate that the Greens will support the proposal put forward by the Hon. Nicola Centofanti in relation to the opening hours of polling booths; it seems like a sensible suggestion. But if there is some cuckoo in the nest—a phrase I have used previously—that comes up in committee and I need to revisit my position, I will do so.

In terms of the amendment from the Hon. Connie Bonaros, I understand the argument the government has advanced in terms of 'if you are an Independent you are an Independent; if you are running under a party banner you are running under a party banner'. On balance, I am inclined to support the proposition put by Hon. Connie Bonaros; that is, if these changes potentially will discourage new entrants or emerging parties, the Greens are often concerned about that. So we will err on the side of caution and support the honourable member's amendment.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the Attorney please outline for the chamber how the enrolment of new electors up to and on polling day will operate?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As the Hon. Rob Simms pointed out, this is not an unknown procedure; it operates in other jurisdictions. My advice is that how we have been advised the Electoral Commissioner intends to undertake would be, firstly, if someone turns up at a polling booth wanting to vote and not being on the roll, I am advised that it is intended that the first procedure will be to check that it is the case—that they are not on the roll—and, presuming that person is not on the roll as they have suggested, I am advised an application for enrolment would be filled out, as would usually happen, then a vote being made that would be a declaration vote. Once the procedure has gone through, as it normally would, to see whether or not that person is eligible for enrolment, if they are eligible for enrolment then that vote would go into the count.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Will electors be able to transfer enrolment up to and on polling day?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, my advice is they are not and that has to do with the Australian Electoral Commission, being the ones we have looking after our enrolment. My advice is that it is very difficult to do that.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: So that would be the same process as exists currently?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes. My advice is that, to transfer enrolments, the same processes will apply as currently apply, and they are unaffected by this legislation.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the Attorney outline what the new postal vote timeframes will be?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: This is pursuant to a recommendation from the Electoral Commissioner's report—I am advised, recommendation 8.1. My advice is that the change will be that the deadline to apply for a postal vote under this recommendation, as proposed in this bill, will be 5pm on the Tuesday prior to polling day for applications from South Australian locations and 5pm on the Friday, eight days prior to polling day, for applications from interstate locations.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can I just start with the issue of those cohorts who will be captured by electronic voting. I recall that during the previous debate on these issues in the last term of government there were moves in this place to extend them beyond the cohorts that have been identified in this particular bill. Are those discussions still underway for any potential future reforms, noting that they are limited to certain cohorts under this bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government is never opposed to considering further reforms, but I am advised that the reforms in here are all we are proposing at this stage. I can remember debates on this in past parliaments where it has been debated. It is finding that balance. I think we have a remarkably secure election system that has developed in Australia—where you can go back and rescrutinise how people have voted, look at paper ballots over and over again—that I think is the envy of many jurisdictions in the world.

It is that balance between the security we have and the assurity we have of being able to rescrutinise and double-checking elections compared to other places we see in the world where you will probably need a PhD in computer science to understand how votes are tabulated and recorded. The simplicity of being able to look back on what has happened in an election is a fundamental part of, I think, what sets us apart from a lot of places in the world. That is balanced against some cohorts of people who have difficulty voting and are needing to vote. We think the limited measures in this bill strike the right balance. We are not closed off in the future but we are certainly not contemplating it any further in this bill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just in relation to robocalls, again thinking back to the last election, given the criticism that was raised of robocalls during the last election, there were a number of candidates who were actually physically picking up the phone and ringing voters in their electorates to, effectively in person, relay their messages that would have otherwise been relayed on a robocall. Does the government propose to look at that at any future point in time depending on the nature of the phone calls that are being made?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In relation to using the telephone to talk directly to electors, we have no intention to ban that. I think it is our view that whether it is the traditional doorknocking or making phone calls as a candidate directly, that interaction between elected members or those seeking to be elected directly in person, whether over the phone or at a door, is a very healthy thing for democracy.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Just on that, can the Attorney perhaps provide some other examples of what robocalls the government is attempting to ban as a result of this amendment bill? For instance, would the ban include ringless voicemail messages where the voicemail message is left on a phone without the phone having rung?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. I am guessing it is if a candidate is ringing and someone does not answer, are they allowed to leave a message? If that is the question, then my advice is that is the case. This is not on the end result, that is, whether you talk to a person or leave a message. I am advised that this is on the process of making the call. If it is that automated process of making the call, that is what this seeks to do—and if it contains regulated content.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Sorry, just so I can be clear, if you have a situation where people are using ringless voicemail messages—so the phone does not actually ring, it just leaves a voicemail from the candidate—will that be considered banned? It is a pre-record. So you are suggesting it is automated. I am just trying to clear it up. So if it is a pre-record—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that if it contains regulated content effectively relating to a state election, if it is that automated call, whether or not a person answers, it is likely captured under what is in the bill.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Just finally on those calls, can the Attorney indicate whether the ban would include a scenario in which a volunteer is phone canvassing, the phone is not answered and a recorded message of the candidate or the member is placed on the voicemail; is that also included?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, if it is a pre-recorded message and not, as we have been talking about, a live message, then it is likely to be captured.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just to be clear, those issues can be addressed by way of regulation to make it crystal clear that you are talking about an automated pre-recorded call, not somebody leaving a voicemail message on a phone.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Was that a statement or a question?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Both. I said, just to be clear, that there is a regulation making power there which would allow us to distinguish between actually calling somebody and leaving a voicemail as opposed to a pre-recorded or automated call, which is really what we are trying to capture here.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, in relation to what is a robocall, that is spelt out in the act rather than being left to regulation, but in the examples that have been given if it is a person or a volunteer calling the number themselves and either speaking to someone who answers the phone or upon getting a voicemail leaving a message for that person as opposed to a machine dialling up and leaving a pre-recorded message or someone dialling up and leaving a pre-recorded message then the former is likely to be allowed.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I would just like to ask the minister about the regulation of electoral advertisements generated by artificial intelligence and prohibiting the use of electoral advertisements designed to mislead, known as deepfakes. Firstly, the definition of advertisements created by artificial intelligence: what exactly does the government envisage in terms of artificial intelligence? What ads will be or will not be acceptable?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. It is a good one, because it is something we are seeing more and more, but we are also seeing rapid development and changing of this sort of technology. The definition that is included in the bill is:

…an electoral advertisement containing audiovisual, visual or audio content that—

(a) is generated wholly by artificial intelligence; or

(b) is created or altered by use of technology of a prescribed kind;

That ability to prescribe the kind I think is particularly important in an area that is changing so rapidly.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: This is quite puzzling, minister, because we have had software for many years now in relation to creating advertisements, political commentary and satire. Now, because that has evolved into quite sophisticated software, the government seems to think that there is something sinister about having a more creative tool to create a political comment. I will give you an example.

If at the 2026 election I were to create a 15 or 30-second advertisement using AI that may poke fun at the Premier and Labor and it was made using artificial intelligence, do I have to declare that? Would that be banned? What is the situation there if somebody is utilising a tool that makes it a lot easier and cheaper to produce election material?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The proposed new section 115B provides:

115B—Certain artificially generated electoral advertisements prohibited

(1) A person must not distribute, or cause or permit to be distributed, an artificially generated electoral advertisement that contains a depiction of a simulated person performing an act that the real person depicted in the depiction did not perform.

I take the member's point about things that have occurred for a long time, but the technology that we see today is so realistic and can depict someone that you could not possibly picture a difference between. You could use it against a political opponent to say that they held certain views that they do not, and the electorate has no way of knowing whether that is that person doing that or not.

It is an area we have seen around the world now. We have seen people who have passed away I think in Indian national elections purporting to have endorsed candidates. We are seeing this being used in ways that I do not think we had ever considered only in recent years.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I want to go back to the point the Hon. Sarah Game made, in particular to this specific question. If I think back to previous examples, if I were to make a cartoon (which we have done) or if I were to use puppets to make a cartoon depicting the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition, that would not necessarily be captured by these provisions because I am not using artificial intelligence in the way that the Attorney has just described where it actually looks like it is the Premier or the Leader of the Opposition in real, in person actually standing and making those comments.

So if it looks like Peter Malinauskas standing up and saying, 'Vote Liberal on 17 March,' using artificial intelligence, then that would be a clear depiction, but if it was some satire using puppets or whatever else it may be then clearly you can tell the difference between the two. Is that the point that we are trying to pick up in the bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that a very clearly simulated cartoon character would not be covered, but what is covered is a simulated person. This may give the Hon. Frank Pangallo some comfort. You can still do things as long as you are not trying to pass it off as if that really is that person doing that.

A simulated person is defined in the bill as meaning a person depicted in an artificially generated electoral content that purports to be a depiction of a particular real person; or—and this is the important part that I think the Hon. Connie Bonaros is going to—so it is either purporting to depict that actual person, not a caricature of that person, or, '(b) so closely resembles a depiction of a particular real person that a reasonable person who knew the real person would consider it likely to be a depiction of the real person.'

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Going back a step in relation to the pre-record versus the actual voicemail—and for those people who know me know that I am certainly no IT guru—but in relation to the differentiation between a pre-recorded voicemail and an actual voicemail, do we know how this is going to be policed?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is a matter for the Electoral Commissioner. As with many offences, it is up to the authorities in terms of how they are investigated or policed. It would be a question of looking at the evidence, taking statements from people. Like many things—not just in these bills, but in much of the legislation we pass—it is a question of obtaining the evidence in the usual course if someone has done something contrary to the bill.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I want to go back to this AI because there is a lot of ambiguity here, and I think it could actually lead to almost an issue about expression of speech as well, I have to say. If I give you this example: if I am to create an image of a bare-chested Premier coming out of a swimming pool, and then made some statement in that still or an advertisement about promises being made about swimming pools and blah, blah, blah, would I be breaching the act by using an image that I have created on AI, rather than the statement itself?

I know what you are trying to get at because, yes, they are very realistic these days as the Premier has even pointed out himself on his own social media pages about how voices can also be manipulated. What if I create an image and then make a statement on there? Would I be breaking the law by the mere fact that I have created that image that is not a real one?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. Of course, there are many provisions of the Electoral Act, including being misleading or not being authorised, that people could potentially fall foul of, but I think I understand the honourable member's question. He wants to use an image of someone that very closely resembles that image, in fact so closely resembles the depiction of a particular person that a reasonable person who knew that real person would consider it likely to be a depiction of that person in an advertisement.

I guess my response to that is: why don't you just use the original image? Why create an artificial image that is deliberately designed to make people who knew that person think it is actually that person? Why not just use the actual image, and if it complies with all the other sections of the legislation it might be allowed?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Can I just say, minister, there is such a thing called copyright. You cannot just use the real image if it is subject to copyright or ownership. It might be Getty Images or whatever. It is much like a cartoonist who would create an image. If you can create an image out of AI that looks like that particular person, and it is an original visual, it is not covered by copyright. Also, can you answer this: is the use of Adobe Premiere Photoshop considered AI?

The ACTING CHAIR (The Hon. I.K. Hunter): The Leader of the Government, the Hon. Mr Pangallo has made a comment and has asked a question about Adobe Photoshop.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, I think the first question was in relation to photos. I am not going to go into whether someone has breached copyright laws or not, but you may be breaching intellectual property by using photos. In relation to the question about the Adobe images, as I said, if it so closely resembles a particular real person—where a reasonable person who knew that real person would consider it likely to be a depiction of the person—in an artificially generated electoral advertisement, then this may likely apply.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Is that not actually the mischief that we are trying to prevent here through these provisions in that it is an unauthorised depiction of a person by somebody else as opposed to using an image that is out there in the universe already—a real image? If we use that example of the Premier in the swimming pool, there is an image out there and everyone knows that image by now, but if I were to use artificial intelligence to create an image of the Deputy Premier in a bikini in a swimming pool without her knowledge and consent, then basically what we are saying is that you should not be able to do that of another person.

You can do it of yourself, if that is what you want to do, but you should not be able to do that of another person during an election campaign and attach to it whatever messaging you like so that the general public is led to believe that that person stands for whatever it is that the person creating the image is saying they stand for.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her contribution. That is essentially what this is looking to do. As I said, the technology is becoming so advanced that it is impossible in a lot of cases to tell the difference. The honourable member raises a good point. If you want to do it for your own advertisements there is nothing stopping you, or you can use artificially generated electoral content if you have the written consent of the person to do it.

For example, if the Hon Connie Bonaros wanted to depict exceptionally realistically—so that person who knew him thought it was him—the Hon. Rob Simms, in a photo in a pool, and the Hon. Rob Simms agreed to look like the Premier did in the swimming pool in that area—

The Hon. R.A. Simms: Sounds good!

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: —as long as the Hon. Rob Simms consents in writing then the Hon. Connie Bonaros can make that electoral advertisement.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just going on from that then, there is obviously the messaging that also comes with that, so you might have that depiction with a form of a message, whether it is words or whatever it is, that misrepresents that particular candidate to the public, and that is really what we are trying to overcome here as well.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that the answer to that may already likely be captured. In section 113, I think misleading to a material extent may well be captured already, which is not allowed.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Would the ban on artificially generated advertisements extend to only those made, used or posted by political participants, or would it include anything made by members of the public? And does ECSA have the ability and resourcing to be able to police such advertisements?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that it is the same as it currently is; that is, any electoral advertisement can potentially be captured. It does not have to be someone who is in parliament or someone else. The prohibition on misleading to a material extent that already exists is in relation to electoral advertisements and that does not need someone to be a participant in the political system, essentially. It is already known, and something that is already understood and already regulated in that sense.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Resourcing?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In relation to resourcing, the Electoral Commission already has these functions in terms of regulating electoral advertisements. This will be another part, but there is already substantial work that the Electoral Commission undertakes in terms of regulation of electoral advertisements.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: This is actually quite disturbing, because there is a potential here for unintended consequences that can impede political commentary and satire, simply because somebody will take offence to a particular image that is being used and only because it is very realistic. It will be quite obvious if something was created that certainly was not the voice or whatever of that particular person, but it could also have the unintended consequence of affecting free speech and political satire. As I said before, this type of software has been around for years. What if somebody simply created that image and said that it was created by artificial intelligence? Would that be acceptable?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We respectfully do not agree with the honourable member's concern that this is going to be some big impediment to electoral processes or being able to get your messages out. If it is just satire, it may well not meet the threshold for an electoral advertisement. If it is just a satire, it may not meet that. That does not mean that that is not something that ought not to be able to be regulated. We have a discussion paper about the use of artificial intelligence more generally in relation to someone's likeness that has nothing to do with this bill.

There is a way that if it is not depicting a person so realistically that it would be passed off to someone who knows that person as that person, then again it may well not meet the threshold for that content. I understand the honourable member's concerns, but respectfully do not agree with those. It is only in recent times that technology has developed that is so advanced and so readily accessible that these sorts of depictions have been available that so closely resemble someone that it is impossible to distinguish, as I say in the definition, and that a reasonable person who knew that real person—it is not just any person on the street; it is a real person who knew that person—would consider it likely to be a depiction of them.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Again, I am quite disturbed by this because this has been going on for years where people can actually produce images that very closely resemble the person that is being depicted in there quite clearly. The other issue is that, as I mentioned, the technology is such today that you may not use what looks like an actual photograph because there are so many filters and things that are available on your phone these days that you can actually convert an image that you may have created through artificial intelligence to perhaps look cartoonish or look differently. Would that be banned by this bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am not going to give definitive proclamations about what will and will not be included, but if you are creating a cartoon, I would think it very highly unlikely that a reasonable person who knew that person, saw a cartoon of someone then considered it likely to be, 'That is actually a real depiction of that person.' It would be difficult to see how that would be the case given what the definition of 'simulated person' means in the bill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just so we do not lose sight of what we are dealing with here, if I can use another real example, there are already other provisions in the bill, and I think I am more concerned about the enforcement side of things. We have had previous elections where someone has used an actual depiction of a person, but put that person in a photo, for instance, with the Leader of the Government in a bed under a sheet, and those images have already been found to be misleading, which we found in previous elections.

The real question is the response time to those advertisements. There are not going to be any more corflutes, but if you wake up on election day and find that an image of you has been used in that way, then have we beefed up the response time before it is disseminated so widely that everyone has had the opportunity to see it? I use that real-life example of two political people, real images used to put them under the sheets of a bed, and that is disseminated across the state—that was found to be misleading by the Electoral Commission. But the response rate has to be adequate, otherwise the damage is already done in terms of misleading voters.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that there is no adjustment in terms of the Electoral Commissioner's powers in terms of material and there is no provision in this bill that affects a lengthened or shortened time to respond.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: But if I were to use artificial intelligence to type in and say, 'Make an image of Connie Bonaros in a swimming pool' or whatever else and to use that, then there would be penalties for the individual who actually created that sort of material and disseminated it publicly?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If it was someone else and not Connie Bonaros doing it, or not Robert Simms doing it with Connie Bonaros's written consent, yes, then the penalty provisions within the act could apply.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: What is the political involvement in the postal vote application process that the bill is trying to resolve?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: This bill makes it abundantly clear that it is the Electoral Commissioner who runs the postal vote system and creates an offence for a person other than a person acting under the authority of the Electoral Commissioner to distribute or cause or permit to be distributed to an elector, a form or a form purporting to be a form for an application for the issue of declaration voting papers or materials containing or purporting to contain a link, code or other means by which an elector is able to apply for the issue of declaration voting papers.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Just to be clear, does this mean that an electoral office will not be able to legally send an email with a link to the ECSA website to a constituent who has contacted their office asking for a voting form?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, not unless they are acting under the authority of the Electoral Commission, but I do not think there is anything stopping someone from suggesting they go to the Electoral Commission and having the Electoral Commission do that.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Therefore, if the constituent asks the office to provide the ECSA webpage, the office are still not allowed to do that legally?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, if you were to provide a link to a part of a website that is the postal vote form itself, that is unlikely to be permissible. I know, because I can remember it, that as a parliament we have tried to regulate this before and to take out the parties' involvement in the postal vote process. Due to a mix of interpretations, participants are finding ways around it and have still had some involvement, and that is something for which we are seeking to make sure that it is the Electoral Commissioner and only the Electoral Commissioner who is involved in postal voting.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I have a query. In the circumstance that the Leader of the Opposition has described—namely, if a member of the public proactively reaches out to a member of parliament and says, 'I want to do a postal vote'—if the member's office provides a link to the Electoral Commission's website and says, 'This is who you need to contact,' is that considered a breach? It seems a bit curious.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. My advice is that if it is a link to the general Electoral Commission website it is unlikely to be captured by this provision. The honourable member is right: it is the balance between making sure that, as members of parliament, we can point someone in the right direction without actually providing the actual form or a link to that form, which is what we are seeking to take parties' and candidates' involvement out of. My advice on the question the honourable member has asked is that it is likely that you can provide the general website address for the Electoral Commission.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Just so that I am very clear: it is not the government's intention, in including that provision, that they prevent members of parliament from providing information to electors about the Electoral Commission and its processes. What you are seeking to prevent is a member of parliament or their office being involved in getting the elector to populate the form and from participating at that level.

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

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: On that, can the Attorney give an indication as to whether this would include a member of parliament or an electorate office providing a constituent with the prescribed ECSA postal vote application form?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that is precisely what this seeks to not allow to happen.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Would political parties be able to advertise postal voting in any format?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, if you provided the form itself or a link directly to the form or, for example, on my advice, a QR code that would link directly to a form, that is what it is seeking to not allow. My advice is that if you made a statement or published something that said, for example, 'If you think you need a postal vote, contact the Electoral Commission', my advice is that is unlikely to be prohibited here.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I am a little bit confused, Attorney, because previously you have said that an electorate office can provide them with a link to the actual form, an email?

The Hon. K.J. Maher: No.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Only to the site?

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Yes.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: The form on the site or the site?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: What I have said in response to a couple of questions, particularly to the Hon. Rob Simms, I am advised that if you provide a link that goes directly to the form you would likely fall foul of this, but if you provide a link to the Electoral Commission website generally—and, as the Hon. Rob Simms said, we are not stopping you from contacting or finding your way to the Electoral Commission generally—that is unlikely to fall foul of this.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Simms–1]—

Page 3, lines 6 to 8 [clause 2(1) and (2)]—Delete subclauses (1) and (2) and substitute:

(1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act comes into operation on a day to be fixed by proclamation.

(2) Schedule 1 comes into operation on 1 July 2025.

I have already outlined the rationale for the amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I oppose this amendment by the Hon. Robert Simms. It seems that his party may well have thrown him under the bus—a green bus I think it is—in relation to trying to keep alive the corflutes. I want to go through some quotes from the last time we discussed corflutes in this place and what Robert Simms said:

Politics is not a beauty pageant.

Corflutes are single-use plastics, except of course when they feature the images of politicians.

We should be judged on our policies, not simple slogans.

The community will breathe a sigh of relief if the parliament finally does away with corflutes.

Our political party's candidate should be judged on the merits of their policies.

This brings South Australia in line with other jurisdictions and is something that will be welcomed by most people in the community.

The Greens have long advocated for a ban on corflutes in public spaces.

The Liberals of course were supportive of the legislation, but it seems that the Greens have suddenly decided that self-interest might be a horse worth putting money on for the federal election. Unfortunately, I will not support this. It is a good try, but no.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: It would be very easy to stand and have a crack on this issue, but I do have some sympathy, I have to say, for the lateness of the changes before a certain election takes place, which was the point I was trying to make when I moved these amendments the first time. I did that out of frustration, so obviously there is no way I will oppose the government's amendments.

I note that when you shift the goalposts on sitting members at a late stage and before an election, that puts things out for them. The Greens have been very strong on this position, but now we are moving into federal territory and effectively at a state level shifting the goalposts for federal MPs who are not sitting in this place and who may have had a very different campaign strategy than we have here.

The Hon. E.S. Bourke interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: The voice of reason, Ms Bourke. It is worth acknowledging that, whilst it is very easy in this instance to have a remarkable opportunity to crack, I completely understand that we are effectively shifting the goalposts for an election that we have nothing to do with.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I indicated, the government will not be supporting this amendment. I was going to say something about the Greens' reintroduction of single-use plastics but the Hon. Frank Pangallo has made some of those points so I will not need to.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Simms–1]—

Page 3, after line 10—Insert:

(a1) Section 4(1), definition of elector—delete '18 years' and substitute '16 years'

I have already explained the rationale behind it. Just to indicate to members, I do intend to call a division on this so get yourselves prepared.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I rise to say that I will not be supporting this amendment by the Hon. Robert Simms. It is another attempt by the Greens to try to lower the voting age in our community. It is interesting that there has been debate both here and nationally about 16 year olds being banned from social media because they are not considered mature enough or perhaps would be influenced by the use of social media.

Here we are, we have the Greens trying to get voting rights for 16 year olds, who I would not think at that age would be capable or mature enough to be able to comprehend complex political issues. They may believe in something at this age, as a lot of us did when we were teenagers, but certainly within a space of a couple of years when you have matured, you would have a totally different take on it, so they would be likely to change their view. I certainly believe that 16 is not the age that people should be given a right to vote in state elections, let alone federal ones.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I do think it is worth responding to the point the Hon. Mr Pangallo has made. I know he was not present for my second reading contribution so he probably did not catch it. One of the points I made at that time is that in South Australia we have an age of criminal responsibility of 10. I think it is a bit rich if we say that children of 10, 11, 12, 13 are old enough to be held criminally responsible, but then 16 and 17 year olds are not old enough to vote and do not know their own minds. I find that a pretty patronising assumption to make about young people.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 2

Noes 16

Majority 14

AYES

NOES

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I think my remaining amendments are consequential, so I will not progress those.

Clauses 4 to 12 passed.

Clause 13.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 6, line 23 [clause 13(1)]—Delete subclause (1)

I note that my amendment following this one is consequential. I have already spoken to this during my second reading. We are effectively opposing the government clauses that allow the descriptor words to be removed for Independents. The second amendment, which is consequential, is the provision that actually allows the Electoral Commissioner to knock out something that is inappropriate. So I will move the first one and—

The CHAIR: And we will see what happens, and you may not move the second one.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Yes.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 14 to 19 passed.

Clause 20.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 9, lines 29 and 30 [clause 20(2), inserted subsection (2a)]—

Delete inserted subsection (2a) and substitute:

(2a) Polling at a polling booth at a pre-polling centre—

(a) may only be conducted within the 7 days before polling day; and

(b) must be conducted between 9 am and 5 pm (or for a longer duration determined by the Electoral Commissioner) on at least 6 of those days.

As I spoke about in my second reading speech, this amendment is really about ensuring that there is a minimum requirement for operating hours of a pre-poll centre to ensure that everyone has ample opportunity to cast their ballot. As is clearly stated in this amendment, the Electoral Commissioner has the discretion to expand those hours during that seven-day period if he or she chooses to do so, but this amendment simply legislates a minimum foundation to work off.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government supports the amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (21 to 37), schedule and 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) (17:46): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.