HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-09-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Electoral (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 22 September 2020.)

Dr HARVEY (Newland) (16:33): I rise today to support the Electoral (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2020. After considering the Electoral Commissioner's report on the 2018 state election, the Marshall Liberal government is proposing six key changes to South Australia’s electoral laws that will modernise the way South Australia delivers state elections and enables South Australia to keep pace with the electoral modernisation that has occurred in other jurisdictions.

Some of these reforms arise directly from the commissioner's report, while others have been initiated by the government. The first key change is expanding pre-poll voting options. South Australians who were unable to attend a polling booth on polling day were able to vote in the two weeks prior by attending one of 22 pre-poll voting centres established at 10 locations in metropolitan Adelaide and 12 regional locations around the state.

A larger than anticipated turnout in pre-poll voting contributed to large queues and wait times. There has been exponential growth in the number of people who want to vote early, up 241 per cent since the 2010 state election, and it is inevitable that the popularity of pre-poll voting will continue to increase into the future.

Given the complaints that were received due to pre-poll wait times, it is clear that electors expect expanded pre-poll capacity so that they have voting services that are able to meet their changing lifestyles and needs. Under this reform, the Electoral Commissioner will be able to establish pre-poll booths, as he deems appropriate, anywhere in South Australia rather than people having to vote at declared institutions such as nursing homes or hospitals, and limit mobile polling booths to regional centres only.

The second key change is allowing for alternative ways to lodge information with the Electoral Commission. The processing of nominations and other lodged election materials within tight legislative deadlines can be challenging and labour-intensive parts of an election. Despite technological advancements across most parts of society, there has been little change to the way information is lodged such as nomination information, how-to-vote cards and voting tickets.

The process currently uses paper lodgement followed by manual data entry which needs to be checked by senior staff. This reform would allow candidates to lodge this information online, thus significantly reducing time and resources required for processing nominations, how-to-vote cards, voting tickets and other candidate-related information. The electronic lodgement of forms will also enhance accuracy and streamline quality assurance practices. This reform would also allow, through the embracing of changing technological expectations, voters to apply for postal ballots by phone or online with extended application deadlines to reflect delivery times. As in the current act, South Australians would still be required to vote in person if not lodging a postal ballot.

A third key change is changing the publication of election information. Under this reform both election information and public notices would be published on the internet rather than in a newspaper. The Electoral Commission is bound by legislation to publish certain statutory notices in newspapers, often at considerable expense. One example is that section 18 of the act states:

the Electoral Commissioner must, between the date of the issue of the writ and polling day, give public notice by advertisement in a newspaper circulating generally throughout the State of the position of all polling places for the district.

To meet this requirement and publish the details of all 693 polling booths used at the state election, the Electoral Commission of South Australia (ECSA) was required to book four consecutive pages in The Advertiser at a cost of approximately $42,000.

Given the high costs involved in publishing notices in newspapers and the prevalence of online and digital media nowadays, the commission recommends that the act be amended to allow the commissioner the flexibility to publish notices on ECSA's website and by any other means deemed appropriate instead of in newspapers circulating throughout the state. ECSA notes that this amendment would align with other jurisdictions such as Victoria where legislation defines 'publish' as 'by any means including by publication on the internet'.

The publishing of election information on the internet will also help address the issue of voter education and engagement. In 2018, elector surveys showed that 33 per cent were unaware of postal voting, 55 per cent were unaware of absentee voting and 56 per cent were unaware of pre-poll voting. Shortcomings in voter education could also be observed in other data.

Informality at 4.1 per cent for both the House of Assembly and Legislative Council elections was at its highest levels since 1982. The elector surveys showed that 6 per cent of voters were not confident about completing their ballot papers, up from 2 per cent in 2014, with this figure rising to 14 per cent in young voters aged 18 to 24. Under this reform, more engagement and awareness measures targeting youth and new citizens, such as publishing election information and notices on the internet, will help counter the declining levels of participation, formality and youth enrolment witnessed at the 2018 state election.

The fourth key change is in regard to itinerant elector reforms. All Australian jurisdictions, including South Australia, provide a special category of enrolment for people who do not have a fixed address and there is a broad consensus in Australia that the lack of a permanent address should not preclude people from being able to vote.

The Electoral Commission mentions concerns had been raised prior to the 2018 state election from the homeless sector that, under the current legislation, homeless people could be set up for failure. This is because, currently, if a homeless person take the positive step of enrolling as an itinerant elector and then for whatever reason does not vote in an election, they will be issued with a failure to vote notice which they will be unlikely to receive given their lack of a fixed address. A failure to respond will then become a fine, which, left unpaid, leads to accumulated late payment fees and potentially court action.

Thus, the current system is only likely to exacerbate the fears and suspicion that many hold towards government. With this in mind, this reform is designed so that if an itinerant elector fails to vote or is outside South Australia for more than one month, they will not lose their status, with an exemption from compulsory voting for itinerant electors to avoid creating hardship for people experiencing homelessness or travelling retirees.

The fifth key change, and certainly in terms of the conversations that I have had in my community the most popular of the changes, is the banning of the corflutes, which are the plastic posters that in South Australia are plastered all over light poles and Stobie poles throughout the state. This reform proposes to ban the use of corflutes on public roads. Over the years, corflutes have proven themselves to be an outdated method of promoting candidates to the public. They are costly, detrimental to the environment and, particularly given the record of this government, particularly in the case of single-use plastics, quite inconsistent with that. They are also a public safety hazard due to their distracting nature, and they do little to educate voters about a candidate or their platform.

I know that quite a lot of electors find them completely annoying. I think the member for Morialta reflected on the fact that in South Australia we are quite unique in that if you turn up during an election, literally every inch of a pole, particularly in the suburbs and particularly in the marginal seats of our suburbs, is covered by a candidate's poster and their face. It is really quite unnecessary. Democracy exists quite successfully in other states within Australia without such a ridiculous level of postering.

I think the other thing that irritates the public is that there are not really other times when people are allowed to attach things to stobie poles. For some reason we can do it during a particular period of time, but no-one else can. That is not to suggest that everyone should be able to plaster things all over poles all the time. I think it really demonstrates how outdated it is and certainly out of step it is with the views of most people in the community.

The sixth key change, and one that a number of members have addressed when speaking to this bill, is the optional preferential voting for lower house candidates. The introduction of optional preferential voting for Legislative Council candidates in 2018 demonstrated that the system was an effective way of ensuring peoples' votes counted. It also gave voters a clearer understanding of where their vote was going. The government is seeking to introduce a similar reform for lower house candidates at the 2022 election.

This is a purely optional system, and voters wishing to cast a more comprehensive ballot will still be able to do so. This is simply about giving people the choice. Certainly, no-one is having their vote taken away. Every vote is being counted. What we are proposing here is to simply not force voters to effectively, in some cases, vote for a candidate they would rather not vote for if they had the choice.

I would argue this is a more democratic and much more transparent process. If people want to vote for one candidate, or if they want to vote for two candidates, and then they are happy for their vote to end at that point, then that is completely their choice. No-one is having their vote taken away. It is not a first-past-the-post system. We are simply empowering individuals within our community to vote the way they want to, and I do not see how that, under any definition, could be undemocratic.

The reforms in this bill will enable South Australia to meet changing community expectations by integrating technological advancements which better reflect changing lifestyles and work commitments whilst accommodating all electors, including those in remote areas. In conclusion, I would like to commend the Attorney for her work in this area and commend the bill to the house.

Mrs POWER (Elder) (16:44): I rise today to support the Attorney-General's bill, similar to many of my Liberal government colleagues who have spoken in support of bettering our democratic processes. The importance of electoral reform cannot be underestimated. We, as members of parliament, are representatives of South Australian residents and I am proudly the member for Elder and the unique and wonderful community within it.

For the vast majority of South Australians, voting is one of the few times that they interact with the democratic process and their members of parliament (or their potential members of parliament). It is our responsibility to ensure that access to the mechanisms that represent the choices and views of South Australians are brought into line with, quite frankly, the 21st century and in line with community expectations, not only the modernisation of the voting process, but ensuring that the votes go where they intend, believe and understand them to go.

We should have an electoral system that is based on providing the best possible opportunity for voters' intentions in the ballot box to be reflected in the actual representatives elected and not because of backroom preferential deals. An optional preferential voting system helps to deliver this. I congratulate the Attorney-General in addressing this need within the bill.

Optional preferential voting means, quite simply, fewer votes will be deemed invalid because voters do not have to follow the how-to-vote card handed out by their preferred candidate. Many votes are considered informal and sadly are not counted when every box is not numbered—which is the current requirement—even when the voter's intention for their preferred candidate is so clearly marked. It means voters are not in some cases inadvertently sending their vote to a candidate that was not their intention, directed to do so by how-to-vote card preferences.

Optional preferential voting means voters can vote for one candidate on the ballot card and that vote will be counted. They can place a preferential vote and number just some of the preferred candidates on the ballot or number all the boxes, if they choose. Quite simply, if a candidate—just one candidate—is marked, it is counted. The voter has demonstrated their clear intention for their vote and surely that should not be rejected. This is absolutely consistent with the feedback that I have received from many residents in my local area, who, when they go into vote they feel they are forced to have to put a number next to people they really do not want to. Under our current system, that is the case, they are forced to put a number where they really do not want to, otherwise the vote would be considered invalid.

The Labor Party's objection to optional preferences seems very hypocritical to me, as it was the previous Labor government who introduced the legislation before the last election for optional preferential voting in the upper house. If it is okay for the upper house, why do we not have the same system for members of parliament in the lower house? Why not make it easier and more transparent for voters as to where their vote will go in both houses of our South Australian parliament?

Most likely because, as it has been pointed out by other members, it will impact votes received via preferences for those opposite. It is that simple. I believe introducing optional preferential voting also for our House of Assembly betters our democratic process, as it gives South Australians the best opportunity for their choice of candidate to be expressed at the ballot box and have a parliament that best represents the will of our citizens.

It is not only changing the way we vote that is proposed under the bill but also improving access for all voters in South Australia to vote. The bill gives effect to a number of recommendations in the 2018 election report, including improved administration, allowing for aspects of the voting process to be digitised and allowing for more pre-poll voting options.

As noted in the report, these amendments will assist with incredible growth in the number of South Australians who want to vote early and will bring us into line with other jurisdictions in Australia who accommodate for this by expanding pre-poll voting, ensuring the greatest number of people can vote at their convenience.

The report also noted our electoral system must adapt and integrate technology to better reflect the digital world that we now live and operate in. It comes as no surprise that under 16 years of the previous Labor government South Australia failed to keep pace with the electoral reform that has occurred in other parts of Australia, a fact made very clear in the 2018 election report. It noted and I quote:

It is now well overdue for South Australia to modernise its electoral act and allow voting services to evolve in order to meet changing community expectations.

Absolutely. I could not agree more with that statement. That is exactly what the Marshall Liberal government is doing. We are getting on with the job, like we have been since the election. Whether it is getting on with the job of improving our electoral democratic processes, improving our healthcare system or building better roads and better schools, we are about getting it done.

Today, in the spirit of getting things done, it is great that voting will become easier under the Marshall Liberal government and the will of the people in our electorates will be more accurately represented in this parliament, assuming those opposite have the courage to also support this bill. I know that is the least they can expect from our state's democratic process. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (16:50): I wish to acknowledge and thank all those who have made a contribution to this debate. I am deeply disappointed that the opposition have chosen to indicate that they will be voting against the whole of this bill. There are multiple recommendations made by the Electoral Commissioner, Mr Mike Sherry, who conducts a review of electoral laws after each election, and by his predecessor, who prepared a report after the 2014 election.

Initiatives of this work populate most of this bill, so to reject the whole of this bill is puzzling to me and quite disrespectful to what I think has been a forensic assessment by the Electoral Commissioner and, in some instances, his predecessor. This assessment is worthy of our consideration and positive endorsement. That said, there are novel aspects of this bill.

It is of course not unreasonable that anyone in the house, including the opposition, might raise questions about their value—namely, the abolition of corflutes, if I can describe them in that manner, and the regulation of the provision of plastic or corflute material during election periods. Another aspect is the consideration of the introduction of optional preferential voting as the model of voting for the House of Assembly every four years in this state.

On the first, can I say that there has been comprehensive public endorsement of this. I cannot think of any other occasion where another stakeholder outside of the direct application of state elections should write to me more quickly than the Local Government Association on this issue. They were absolutely spontaneous in their prompt response, in a letter to me as the Attorney-General, to say, 'If South Australian state elections are going to be free of the curse of all these corflutes'—and I am paraphrasing that position—'then please let us join. Please do it for us as well; we want to be relieved of this'.

That is a matter we had not directly canvassed with the LGA at that stage. I discussed the matter with the former minister for local government and it had not been fleshed out in any discussion. Quite rightly, the former minister would not have been asking me, as Attorney-General, to introduce it into this legislation. It had not been discussed at length but the rapidity of which this response came with the urgent request that they be included made me mindful of the fact that we needed to address it.

During the development of this bill, and since its introduction back in July, we have had that conversation. In fact, we have had a number of councils contact me individually to say, 'Let us join in this opportunity to relieve us from corflutes during elections.' They are a blight on the environment, they are expensive in time and money to put up and take down and they raise some traffic safety issues. I have outlined all of the reasons for doing it, but it seems that local government wants relief from this as well.

Initially, I felt that they had, under their own local government regulations, the power to decline the display of these within their area. I note that councils, such as the Mount Barker council, in recent years have identified a limited number that candidates can put up in their own area. Of course, many councils identify certain areas that you cannot put corflutes on, for example Stobie poles at intersections or stop signs—anything that might distract from someone being able to safely navigate the road. I have noted that.

I have also noted, even as late as today or yesterday, that Councillor Marion Themeliotis, who is a councillor at the Onkaparinga council, is apparently going to write to me, according to this media statement, to request that I also remove the exemption from corflute signage during local government elections under our proposed election reform. That is great. I have not received Marion's letter yet, but it is indicative of what is happening. They want to be relieved. Obviously, it is not all councils.

There have been some that have indicated that they want to maintain this position, anecdotally, but others are very clear. In any event, consistent with the requests we have received from the association representing local government, we have prepared amendments that are outlined in amendment No. 79 of the foreshadowed amendments that have been tabled today for consideration in due course.

I have also discussed with the Electoral Commissioner, Mr Sherry, the fact that the Local Government Association has made this request, because this question of what model is applied to that is significant just from the point of view of not confusing the public. So whatever model we have in the process here, it ought to be the same, he suggested, for local government as we might settle upon as a parliament for state elections to minimise confusion to the public. Accordingly, I indicate that the drafting that has been prepared in relation to the restriction of the display of corflutes is an exact replica of what is proposed to occur in state elections.

I would suggest that, in the 21st century with the modes of communication that we have, we really are in a new era now, just as we were perhaps 40 or 45 years ago when we moved from banners at polling booths to corflutes. We have such electronic transmission now of information and data that it seems to me that we really are looking at a very anachronistic form of communication by the posters. In any event, everyone will have their say on that, but I do not for one minute suggest that, just because it applies in other states, we do not give it some careful assessment and that members do have a chance to make a contribution in that regard.

The second area is the introduction of optional preferential voting as the model of voting for House of Assembly candidates. I do not understand the arguments presented by the opposition against this. I find it rather inconsistent, with the very same arguments that the former Attorney-General the Hon. John Rau presented to us then in opposition about introducing optional preferential voting in the Legislative Council.

Mr Picton: It's a multimember electorate.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member for Kaurna interjects to say, 'Well, that's a multimember electorate.' I assume that means it is his justification for there being some distinguishing between optional preferential voting being fine for the Legislative Council but not suitable for here. I do not understand that distinction at all. I think there is clearly a position where the public have really expressed their view very clearly that they do not want to have to vote for somebody they do not want.

It seems to me that the opposition's argument here has been, 'Every vote must count and even if you don't want your vote to count for somebody you don't like, you still have to vote.' Well, we are the party of choice. We say that the public do need to have a choice to be able to place a name against the people they want or like and not have to be forced to vote for someone they dislike the least. It is just bizarre, really. But, in any event, we offer this model.

Eminent people in the academic world, such as Dr Dean Jaensch, who has written about democracy generally and electoral models and reforms over decades, have placed their support in there being some reform in this regard. I just do not understand the inconsistency there, and I think it will be important to the people of South Australia to have that choice. Of course, they can continue to place a number in order in every box if they wish.

But if they say, 'There are only two people out of these five I would ever want to support. I don't want my name associated with and I don't want to endorse anyone else. I want to be able to say that I did not vote for the person if they are elected,' they ought to be able to say that. We have a secret ballot, of course, and they do not have to say it, but they also really are in a position where they ought not be forced to fill out the ballot paper.

In reality, somebody could go into the ballot box, comply with the law by turning up and having their name removed from the roll and not put one stroke on the paper. They can write, 'I vote for Mickey Mouse,' or they can write nothing on the paper. It will be informal, but they will have complied with the law. They are entitled not to vote for anybody at all, yet the opposition is saying to the parliament that we should not let them not fill in some of the spaces. It is mindbogglingly inconsistent to me and nonsensical that we would not adopt this.

Again, the offer remains for continued briefings if information is sought, and we would certainly ask that members give careful consideration to support of this and, indeed, a number of the amendments, one of which is proposed, a consequential amendment I foreshadow, which has been tabled and which the Electoral Commission of South Australia (ECSA) supports.

I indicate that I am aware of a significant number of amendments that are sought by the member for Florey, and they commence at proposed amendment to clause 4 and a number thereafter. I note that the member for Florey is not able to move her amendments today and in respect of that I will not go past clause 4 today; I will not ask parliament to consider past clause 4.

The Hon. G.G. Brock: I can do it.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: You can?

The Hon. G.G. Brock: I can do it on her behalf.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have had an indication that the member for Frome is able to move those on her behalf, in which case we are happy to continue past clause 4 if that is the case. I am seeing the member for Frome furiously nodding, so I will take that as an endorsement of his consent and approval to advance those, and that would certainly help with continuing to deal with the matter. With those few words, I seek that the bill be read a second time.

The house divided on the second reading:

Ayes 24

Noes 17

Majority 7

AYES
Basham, D.K.B. Bell, T.S. Brock, G.G.
Chapman, V.A. Cregan, D. Duluk, S.
Ellis, F.J. Gardner, J.A.W. Harvey, R.M. (teller)
Knoll, S.K. Luethen, P. Marshall, S.S.
McBride, N. Murray, S. Patterson, S.J.R.
Pisoni, D.G. Power, C. Sanderson, R.
Speirs, D.J. Tarzia, V.A. Treloar, P.A.
van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. Whetstone, T.J. Wingard, C.L.
NOES
Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K. Boyer, B.I.
Brown, M.E. (teller) Close, S.E. Cook, N.F.
Hildyard, K.A. Koutsantonis, A. Malinauskas, P.
Michaels, A. Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K.
Piccolo, A. Picton, C.J. Stinson, J.M.
Szakacs, J.K. Wortley, D.
PAIRS
Cowdrey, M.J. Gee, J.P. Pederick, A.S.
Hughes, E.J.

Second reading thus carried; bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr PICTON: I am wondering if the Attorney-General can outline any discussions, any meetings or any correspondence that she has had regarding this legislation or other amendments to the Electoral Act with Ms Sascha Meldrum or anybody from the Liberal Party of Australia administration.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I certainly have. Indeed, I would expect, having sent a copy of the bill to every member of parliament in the state parliament, that they or representatives of the political party they represent would have done similarly to identify what aspects they would want to endorse if they are a member of a political party. Certainly, from the Liberal Party of Australia (South Australian Division), we do confer with our party, and in particular the director, on matters in relation to electoral reform, and we value the party's advice in relation to these matters.

Similarly, the Electoral Commissioner has invited political party representatives, including Ms Meldrum, to put submissions in relation to recommendations that are made post election; that is, the election reports and also the extra report that he did after the 2018 election in relation to public funding and the obligations in relation to disclosure, which are now in law and which were implemented for the first time at the 2018 state election. So, yes, absolutely—she has made a very effective contribution to the Electoral Commissioner. I say that because it seems a number of her ideas have been picked up in recommendations that he has published.

They may have also been presented by the Australian Labor Party, the Greens party, alliance SA or the SA-Best party. There are obviously a number of political parties. We have the Child Protection Party. We have all sorts that are registered. In any event, the political parties are instrumental in helping electoral commissions implement the obligations under our electoral laws.

If there is going to be an area of incapacity on behalf of candidates, whether they be via a party or individual candidates to be able to be part of the democratic process of election, then I would expect those political parties and/or individuals to identify that in the course of any reforms that are recommended by the Electoral Commissioner.

Largely, of the many people who received notice of the reforms, the responses received included the Office of Local Government, the Electoral Commission itself, the AGD Royal Commission Response Unit, the Animal Justice Party SA, the National Party of Australia SA, the University of Adelaide, Professor Clement Macintyre on behalf of Professor Lisa Hill, Dr Jonathon Louth and Dr Glynn Evans, the Local Government Association and the Child Protection Party. That is my understanding of those that had provided submissions, some of which, of course, are on their own websites but some of which are internal and which therefore are not disclosable.

In any event, I would hope that the member's own political party has also given consideration, because my recollection is that a number of things that have been recommended by the Electoral Commissioner are consistent with what the member for Kaurna's political party would also be advocating for. But in any event, on the distinctive matter of corflutes and OPV—and I am not suggesting for one minute that that has come from the Electoral Commissioner, and I have not at any time—they are matters which are recommended based on the assessment that the government has made and with the support of the Liberal Party of Australia.

Certainly, they are strongly of the view that the corflutes have had their day, and I think they are very much in sync with the people of South Australia. As to the OPV model, well, of course, this was something that we proposed back when the Labor government proposed OPV in the Legislative Council as to whether we should apply it to the lower house as well. It is not new for our side of politics. It was a question at that point where the representative on behalf of the Labor Party, the Hon. John Rau, was saying, 'Well, look, we are committed to introducing OPV in the Legislative Council but we're not promoting it in the House of Assembly, but that's a matter we can consider at later date.' So here we are, it is a later date and it is on the table.

Mr PICTON: Can the Attorney provide the house with the date upon which was the first time the Attorney or her office provided Ms Sascha Meldrum, or anybody in the Liberal Party, with a draft copy of this legislation, this bill, or any briefing on this legislation?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I cannot but I will make inquiry as to the consultation regime. I know that I signed letters to all the members of parliament and all the political parties. I think they were all at the same time, but I will get the date on which when they were all presented.

Mr PICTON: I do think it is pretty incredible that we do have this situation where the Deputy Premier seemingly has had a long discourse of discussion with her own party about this, yet there has been very little public consultation, very little discussion, with other people other than she said that she wrote a letter to members of parliament about it, particularly when we are dealing with a situation where optional preferential voting has been inserted in this legislation, not as a recommendation of the electoral commission but through a mysterious process that we still do not know the origins of.

However, the Attorney is very open about the fact that there were various discussions with the State Director of the Liberal Party about this legislation, yet we do not know how early those were, we do not know when briefings were provided, how early those briefings were provided, as opposed to when other members of parliament were able to see this legislation, or in in fact the public at large. So I would ask the Attorney: how many times did she meet with Liberal Party officials about this legislation? Did she meet or discuss this bill with any political party other than the Liberal Party?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I note the comments made. I understand that we have some advisers here to deal with the FOI bill which is to be following this one and, in light of the time, I might propose that we report progress on this matter and I will then call on the parliament to consider the next bill.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Mr PICTON: Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT