HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-11-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Electoral (Accountability and Integrity) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

Debate resumed.

Clause 26.

The CHAIR: This is the last call for any questions on clause 26. Minister, do you wish to move the insertion of clause 26?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: Just to be sure, I will wait for the member for Heysen. Does the member for Heysen have a clause?

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order on my left! Part of the previous dissent from my ruling was based on members not having the necessary paperwork, so the minister is just making sure that you had the relevant information before you while we discuss this clause.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Unley, do you wish to leave the chamber?

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: No, I cannot do that but I can report it to the Speaker and he can send him out—and I am happy to do it. We can be here all night; it is up to you guys. Yes, I am happy to be here all night and all tomorrow and the day after. Any debate or questions on clause 26?

Mr TEAGUE: I will just ask the question then, just to be clear. Wherever there is a motion to insert a clause that appears in strikeout in the bill as received from the Legislative Council, then I have that.

The CHAIR: You have that, yes.

Mr TEAGUE: Right, and if there is an amended version like this one that was the subject of a new clause 21, then—

The CHAIR: Member for Heysen, I am aware of your reasoning. You have explained that reasoning on a number of occasions already. There is no need to repeat it, thank you very much. We can go through the whole routine again, if you want; I am happy to.

Mr TEAGUE: With respect, you just interrupted the proposition. I am prepared to deal with those clauses that appear in the version of the bill as received from the Legislative Council. For good measure, I am prepared to deal with amendments that are in the form that we have just seen, provided they are brought to my attention and that of the committee before they are moved.

The Hon. D.R. Cregan interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

Mr TEAGUE: Rather than respond to interjections, I will just make it clear that I will be very straightforward about what amendments are familiar to me and which take me by surprise. My purpose in this regard is to ensure that the committee is appropriately informed and that the public record is actually coherent in the sense that it can be understood that what has passed through this place is not the same as what has been received from the Legislative Council. There is absolutely nothing more to it than that. It is a matter of identifying the merits.

So, as I understand it, what is being moved now and hereafter are struck-out clauses that we have in our hand based on what has been received.

The CHAIR: Do you wish to deal with substantive nature of that clause now or you do not have any questions on the clause.

Mr TEAGUE: No questions on the clause.

The CHAIR: So the question before the Chair is that clause 26, as inserted in the bill, as presented to this chamber in strikeout form in the bill, be agreed to.

Clause inserted.

Clause 27.

The CHAIR: Minister, can you move the insertion of clause 27, which appears in the bill in strikeout form from the upper house?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: You got this one, Josh?

The CHAIR: Minister!

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: That was the basis of the objection earlier, so I am just double-checking. I move:

That clause 27, which is printed in erased type, be inserted in the bill.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Point of order: members must be referred to by their electorates. The minister—

The CHAIR: The member for Unley will resume his seat.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The minister did not do that.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! Given the nature of the debate on both sides, I think we will just carry on. Minister, you have moved the motion and I would appreciate if you can keep your commentary to yourself, please.

Clause inserted.

Clauses 28 to 30 passed.

Clause 31.

The CHAIR: Minister, clause 31 you need to insert. It is a strikeout clause.

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I move:

That clause 31, which is printed in erased type, be inserted in the bill.

Mr TEAGUE: This is a further amendment to part 13A and it is the establishment of a new division 5A, provision for policy development funding for certain political parties. The entitlement in this regard recognises the need and the role of political parties in policy development. In terms of the use of such funds and, if you would like to return to the audit theme, the means by which the government might be able to satisfy the people of South Australia that those funds are applied for the intended purpose, is there anything the government will apply in order to ensure, beyond the 2027 review, that these provisions are doing the intended work?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I think I can reassure the member that the Electoral Commissioner has to certify that the expenditure, which is provided on a reimbursement basis, falls within the definition.

Clause inserted.

Clauses 32 and 33 passed.

Clause 34.

Mr TEAGUE: At clause 34 we see the expenditure caps and the insertion across the board of '(2026 indexed)'. Just for the avoidance of doubt at this point, this is, as I read it, providing a new form of indexation that these are the numbers that will apply as at 2026 and then they will move forward from there.

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I am advised and can reassure the member that the indexation is already set to the 2026 election.

Clause passed.

Clauses 35 and 36 passed.

Clause 37.

Mr TEAGUE: As a point of curiosity, I go to the current section 130ZC. The current section 130ZC is a prohibition on arrangements to avoid applicable expenditure cap. The new section 130ZC is a provision for recovery. As I read it, it is necessary in part because of the provision for payment of funds in advance, but there is a removal of the discrete maximum penalty provision that is the subject of the current section 130ZC. Instead, as I read it, that will be replaced by the general offence provision that is the subject of clause 61, which will be the new section 130ZZE, which will mean that instead of a $25,000 penalty there will be a $20,000 penalty but now potential imprisonment for four years.

Is there anything that the government is able to elucidate in terms of the rationale for the internal, as it were, repayment provision that is the subject of the new provision—10 times the excess—and am I correct in reading it that way that otherwise there is the substantial penalty provision that is the subject of clause 61 that can apply as well?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: Respectfully, the member, I think, has correctly understood the thrust of the sections and the effect of the penalty clauses. Both can apply.

Clause passed.

Clause 38.

Mr TEAGUE: We are here dealing with the insertion of new division 6A, which is the substantive division that is prohibiting donations but also loans. It is quite an all-encompassing clause. The clause deals with both donations and loans. In terms of the treatment of those two categories separately, what considerations has the government given to needing to regulate loans as distinct from donations, and what particular safeguards are in place to prevent all forms of contribution, including those that might be undocumented loans to individual candidates?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I thank the member for Heysen for the question; it is an important one. There certainly are safeguards in place for contravention of the scheme as anti-avoidance provisions, which are particularly significant. We discussed those a moment before. It is important to observe that considerable thought has gone into the regulation of loans, as has gone into the regulation of donations, and of course those measures are set out in the act. It is important to emphasise as well that loans from registered financial institutions are emphasised to the reader.

Clause passed.

Clauses 39 to 43 passed.

Clause 44.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: This refers to donations to third parties. I am trying to establish what the intention of the clause is. 'Third parties' are people who have no connection to a candidate or a political party but may wish to support a candidate, a political party or a particular political message during a campaign. If, for example, a street of residents who are very focused on wanting a commitment for an upgrade of an intersection get that from a particular candidate and they then want to promote that candidate by buying social media boosting, radio boosting or space on a billboard that complied with the Electoral Act, would the fees that were paid to the media company that provided that service be considered donations to a third party?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I do not want to disappoint the member for Unley, but what I want to do is make plain that this is intended to capture moneys that might be paid to third parties for state electoral purposes and, in that way, achieves a transparency mechanism by requiring individual returns.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I have given you a specific situation and I am trying to determine the intent of the legislation by using that example, which is a real example. What happens in an environment where you can give donations is that people may very well give donations to that candidate, but they cannot do that. They want to support that candidate, so they are actually using a media organisation that will have a bill for the services that they provide and they have all agreed to contribute to that cost because they want to back that particular candidate that has promised to fix that intersection. I want clarity as to whether in that situation that is considered a donation to a third party, or because collectively a group of people are buying a service from a media agency, is that a donation or does that fall within this 130ZHA of the clause?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: With great respect to the member for Unley, whether something amounts to a donation or not is not necessarily specifically captured by this clause. I think I can assist the member for Unley by emphasising that the returns are required if a person makes an electoral donation, or electoral donations totalling more than $1,000 to a third party in a financial year, and so it is intended to capture contributions in those circumstances of that particular value or more, over that particular period. In those cases there is the transfer requirement for individual returns to be filed.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It is not a donation. They are collectively buying media services, it is not a donation. This is not a charity they are giving money to. It is not a political party they are giving money to. They are buying services to have their message heard, so is that captured by this 130ZHA in clause 44?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: In order to assist the member for Unley the question is probably whether it is an electoral donation. We have obviously passed the section which deals with definitions, but in short, if it is for state electoral purposes then, of course, those people should be making an inquiry as to whether they are captured and it may very well be in the circumstances that the member has described that they would be.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Would the organisation that was providing those services have to be a registered third party of a media organisation that people were buying media from?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I think I can assist the member for Unley by emphasising that this section is squarely directed at those individuals who would seek to make a donation to a third party, and otherwise I repeat my immediate previous answer, which I think provides the architecture around the matters that the member for Unley has raised.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): No, member for Unley, I think you have had four contributions already on this clause.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It is a very large clause.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): I do not care how large it is, it is a clause.

Clause passed.

Clauses 45 to 55 passed.

Clause 56.

Mr TEAGUE: This is the next substantive new alteration to part 13A, new division 8A—Registration of third parties. I would here perhaps take up the invitation of the minister back at clause 9(3). I think the minister was wanting to deal with the anomaly or the question of the way that the registration obligation is framed in contrast to the definition of 'associated entity' at clause 9(3).

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: The member for Heysen asks a good question, and I certainly had also earlier appreciated the thrust of the matters that he had wished to ventilate with me. I am advised, of course, that we are dealing with third parties that incur or intend to incur political expenditure, and it is forward looking. I hope that that provides the guidance that the member for Heysen is seeking, but it may be that he would want to elucidate further matters with me.

Mr TEAGUE: Not really. The new section 130ZUA—Political expenditure by third parties—is a requirement that any third party who incurs or intends to incur more than the threshold of political expenditure during the designated period must not do so unless they are registered. It is forward looking, and it is to be contrasted, as we have dealt with back at clause 9, with that of an associated entity and the particular example is given at note No. 2 where, for reasons that might be understood, you are establishing association as of the time that the scheme commences and you are doing that according to past form. Why not do so in respect of the stipulation in the new section 130ZUA? I am quick to acknowledge, there is no proposed amendment; I am looking for the rationale.

Given that a bunch of the subject matter for this bill is to deal with incumbents of various kinds, and clause 9(3) in fact contemplates that very thing by reference to association, the way this will work is that if there has been a third party who participated to some significant extent in the last election, they are not going to have to register by virtue of that fact; however, they may be regarded as an associated entity.

So I ask the question again: why not, as a matter of rationale, require the third party that has participated in the threshold way last time to register based on that behaviour rather than entirely about what they might do going forward? Is it not in the public interest, and in the interests of the structure of the bill, that such parties are required to be registered, and even perhaps conceding the possibility for exemption, if they have been since wound up or if there is some other reason why they no longer exist, much the same as incumbent political parties?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I am advised that a register is necessarily forward looking because it is contemplating the circumstances that relate to the election to hand and, of course, the case of the next state election in 2026. I emphasise that the expenditure that is relevant is that the third party incurs or intends to incur or has incurred at the relevant date. But it is forward looking. One can imagine the scope of the inquiry that might be invited if alternative drafting was to be the drafting that the government had preferred.

Mr TEAGUE: I am not sure what that means. Just to be clear and in part because the minister specifically directed attention to clause 56, in my view it is equally as relevant at clause 9(3). There is specific provision at clause 9(3) for a registered industrial organisation being a third party under that part if it has participated in the previous election. So much has been said before. We are dealing with this for the first time.

If one reads this after the next election, and we have then got registered third parties for the first time, because they will have registered, then clause 9(3) will be doing yet new work in that it will be defining as third parties those registered industrial organisations that participated the previous time. So it is a matter of substance. Is the intent to establish the point that once registered under the new 130ZUA, then for future purposes the definition of 'associated entity' will have some work insofar as the carve-out is concerned? Is that the limit of it?

Until then, for the purposes of the coming election, a would-be registered industrial organisation, that is an organisation that is going to participate in the next election, is within the new definition of associated entity because they are not yet registered. Is that the way that works?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: My advice is that it might assist the member and also the house for me to reflect that, if the third party is not intending to engage in political expenditure, they might not choose to register, after taking appropriate advice and forming a view about their position. They might, nonetheless, based on their conduct to date, be subject to reporting requirements. I think that is the crispest possible indication that I can give.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Under the registration of third parties, would a media seller, a media buyer or someone providing media services or creative services in media be considered a third party if they were simply selling their services to others who may be registered as third parties or individuals who wish to participate in the political process?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I thank the member for Unley for the question. I think it is important for me to emphasise that I am advised, and of course you are aware, that 'third party' means a person other than a person engaged in a broadcasting service within the meaning of the Broadcasting Services Act. As well, the general threshold for third parties, of course, are those that are incurring or intending to incur expenditure of $10,000.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: That is still not clear to me, minister. If that media company was providing a whole service, including designing a campaign, being paid for that—not doing it as a gift, not doing it as a donation but being paid for that—by, say, a private individual who has the means to back a particular message or a particular candidate, will that media organisation be required to be a registered third party?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I thank the member for Unley for the question. I think it is very important to emphasise that the test might well be in the circumstances where the political expenditure is being incurred, and that invites a closer scrutiny of what exactly it is that the organisation is intending to do. It might be informed, for example, by the nature of the contract that might be in place between the parties.

One could think of other extrinsic circumstances or documents that might inform the nature of the relationship. One could continue to speculate in that sense, but otherwise the relevant test that I have emphasised or the matter to which the member for Unley might look and others who read these remarks later might look is to determine whether it is in fact political expenditure.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: If somebody receives fee for service for designing a political campaign and provides the ability to then buy that media, whether that be on social media, whether that be newspapers, whether it be on television, is the minister telling this chamber that that media organisation must be a registered third party?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: If the services that are being performed are services of a mere contractor, then it may be that the organisation has the comfort it requires but an inquiry will necessarily need to be made into whether it is political expenditure. Of course, one of the tests is the amount, but further inquiry would have to be made into the exact nature of the activities that are being undertaken.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Minister, I am sorry but it is still not clear—

The CHAIR: Member for Unley, you have actually asked your three questions.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: This is a supplementary, sir. I still do not understand the intention of this clause and I am trying to get some clarity from the minister.

The CHAIR: Member for Unley, that is not a basis for a supplementary. A supplementary is to get further information or to elaborate on points—

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Yes, it is further information.

The CHAIR: Hold on, let me finish. I will allow this on this occasion.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Thank you very much, sir, you are very gracious. Minister, it is a very simple question but I am not getting an answer from you. The question is: if someone is selling services, whether they be selling shoes or selling political messages, must they be registered as a third party in order to sell those political messages?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I think I have been tolerably clear. Mere contractors, somebody who just has an engagement—presumably subject to certain terms with the political party—is not intended to be captured, and in that sense I am advised no substantive change is intended to the meaning of 'third party'.

Clause passed.

Clause 57 passed.

Clause 58.

Mr TEAGUE: Here we have the further provision for audit by the Electoral Commissioner—so two new sections, 130ZWA and 130ZWB. We first have the Electoral Commissioner's power, as might be the subject of regulations as well, to audit activities and documents of applicable entities, and then the 130ZWB provision requires registered political parties to provide details of associated entities. I am interested in the whole audit process, but the question might also more particularly be directed to these obligations on political parties to provide details of associated entities.

In circumstances where the obligation is on the agent to provide information with an objective test as to the reasonableness of their knowledge about each associated entity, and then to do so as soon as practicable after an entity becomes an associated entity, what sort of safeguard is there in terms of the agent's obligations and in terms of notice to the associated entity that they are then subject to the provision of information and in turn to the audit provisions that are otherwise the subject of 130ZWA?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: As I understand it, if I have grasped it correctly, the member is interested in the types of inquiries that might be made by the Electoral Commissioner that might precede an audit. In that sense, of course, these are steps that are taken wholly by the Electoral Commissioner. It must be remembered in terms of associated entities that a nomination has to be made by the nominating party and that up to two can be nominated, so I think it is going to be tolerably clear who those associated entities might be.

I need to be plain speaking: of course, there are associated entities and nominated entities and we need to be clear about that. My earlier comments were in relation to nominated entities, just for clarity.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The audit powers of the Electoral Commissioner, do they extend to the Electoral Commissioner having the powers to compulsorily audit businesses that have for a fair market price sold services to registered entities who are participating in the political process?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: It is important to emphasise that the audit powers extend to a person or body to whom funding is payable under the act as it would be amended or an associated entity or a third party. Those are the organisations to whom the audit powers extend.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: So it is not about expenditure, it is about money payable by the government? Is that what the audits are about? In this auditing process, there is no ability for the Electoral Commissioner to audit the donations, money received, or how the money is spent by these registered entities? Is that what you are saying?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I think I can best assist the member for Unley and the house by emphasising that you must first be an applicable entity before the audit threshold is crossed, if that is tolerably clear. In that case, it must be because the act is very plain about what an applicable entity means: a person or body to whom funding is payable under the part or an associated entity or a third party. Here I hesitate to emphasise but feel strongly that the question strikes again at what a third party might be and equally there are provisions of course in the act that provide the architecture for that.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Just to be clear, audit is only about money received from the government; it is not about auditing money received by those entities through donations or the money that those entities spend. I just would like some clarity on that please, minister.

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: Let me be as crisp as I possibly can be. I think I understand the thrust of the member for Unley's question and I am endeavouring to be as helpful as possible. If you are a third party, you can be audited.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: For expenditure?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: Or any activities. Let me just for a moment turn to section 130ZWA. 'Audits by Electoral Commissioner etc' is the heading in the clause. It provides:

(1) The Electoral Commissioner may, in accordance with any requirements of the regulations, audit the activities and documents of an applicable entity.

So, as I have earlier guided the member for Unley, we then return to the entity and one imagines that the Electoral Commissioner or others seeking to crystalise their potential liabilities or burdens that might be imposed on them by the act will ask themselves the question as to whether they fall into the range of organisations that I earlier outlined.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Is it then reasonable for somebody who might be providing services in an area to then take from this bill once it is proclaimed that because they have sold services to an entity—they are not an entity themselves but have sold services to an entity—they will not be subject to audit?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I will answer now and also seek additional advice. I refer the member for Unley to my earlier answer as I was advised in relation to third parties. I think the position is tolerably clear. I emphasise to the house that, if you are a mere contractor, it is not intended that the act would capture you, but, nevertheless, if you are a person or a body to whom funding is payable under the act or an associated entity or a third party within the meaning of the act you are potentially subject to audit.

Clause passed.

Clauses 59 and 60 passed.

Clause 61.

Mr TEAGUE: Clause 61 deals with offences and it imposes a new form of offence that covers two divisions of part 13A; that is, the existing division 6, which deals with electoral spending caps, and the new division (6a), which deals with the bans. That is the new regulation of donations division. In so far as division 6 is concerned, there are several offences the subject of civil money penalties for things like breaches of expenditure caps under the existing section 130Z and arrangements to avoid applicable expenditure cap, which is the old ZC. Some of it, therefore, has been amended. What we have now is a blanket maximum dollar penalty of $20,000 for an offence relating to any act or omission under division 6 or 6A or imprisonment for four years.

Where there is still a specific maximum civil penalty that applies to any of the division 6 offences, and maybe the answer is that they are all gone, but is there any overlap and what is the rationale for on the one hand reducing, in several cases, the maximum dollar penalty but at the same time imposing a common maximum penalty of four years' imprisonment?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I thank the member for the question. It is a significant one and I appreciate the opportunity to make these remarks on the record. I am advised that in relation to the amendment of section 130ZZE—Offences, before subsection (1) it is intended that we insert a penalty, and that is (a1). The maximum penalty is $20,000 or imprisonment for four years. It is intended that this be an offence that depends on the knowledge of the person concerned where that person does an act or makes an omission that is unlawful; I emphasise 'knowledge'. In terms of (a2):

(a2) A person who does an act or makes an omission that is unlawful under Division 6 or Division 6A…

And there follows the contemporary formulation of an offence that we are customarily expecting to read based on the excellent drafting of Mark Emery and others. In this case, the test is 'ought reasonably' know. That partly informs the reason for different penalties.

The member for Heysen is right: there is overlap. It is intended. Of course, it would be for the charging authority to ultimately determine which penalty might be sought.

Mr TEAGUE: Just going further to the rationale for the provision of a penalty of imprisonment for four years in the subsection (a1) circumstance and a maximum of two years in the subsection (a2) circumstance, all of which apply to the whole of division 6 or 6A, as I read it, presently—I think I gave one or two examples in the course of my second reading contribution, and if I can turn them up I might test that.

A penalty of imprisonment is not new to the act. In section 109—Bribery, for example, there is a maximum penalty of imprisonment for seven years. For undue influence, the subject of section 110, there is also a maximum penalty of imprisonment for seven years. For interference with the free exercise of any relevant activity under the act, there is also a maximum penalty of imprisonment for one year. So a penalty of imprisonment for these electoral offences will now sit alongside those of bribery, undue influence and other forms of interference.

In terms of what has informed those penalties, it would appear that the seriousness of them would reflect either just that or something analogous to an equivalent perceived interference with the conduct or outcome of an electoral process.

Is there a rationale that the government has followed that is therefore relating those existing serious offences under the act? Does it stand alone? If so, where is the rationale for proportionality, and is the government satisfied that there will not be if only some initial flurry of circumstances in which people are caught with these very significantly increased criminal outcomes where previously, even if people are familiar with the division 6 sort of circumstances, there had been a whole different approach to compliance in that respect?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I thank the member for Heysen for the question. The government intends to make plain that these are serious offences. They are intended to effect specific and general deterrence in relation to possible breaches of the act. They have been placed accordingly on the criminal calendar, reflecting the seriousness with which the state would wish those who might be contemplating or who need to guard against contraventions of this act to reflect upon the penalties. Allow me to seek some additional advice to possibly conclude my remarks.

Further, it might assist the house and the member for me to reflect that the penalties are drawn out from those penalties that are contemplated or described in the Legislation Interpretation Act. As I say, I think it is right for me to emphasise that the government has obviously taken advice in relation to where it is that we would wish for these penalties to sit within the criminal calendar overall.

Mr TEAGUE: It may be not by way of a question, but I think subsection (a3) is in fact the high watermark of those penalties in terms of the cover-all for division 6 and division 6A offences where there is participation in a scheme and a maximum imprisonment of 10 years. In circumstances where that is both serious and novel, is there a worked example that the government might be able to provide, a classic example of a subsection (a3) circumstance, and is it not the case that there is sufficient provision for circumstances that are contemplated by subsection (a3) in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: It might assist the house for me to reflect that subsection (a3) of course concerns a person who knowingly seeks to participate, directly or indirectly, in a scheme to circumvent the act. In that sense, it is an anti-avoidance provision. The penalty is significant. It does, as I earlier remarked, reflect the government's determination to ensure that within the criminal calendar there are penalties for a knowing scheme to circumvent the act. In that way it achieves specific and general deterrence as well, I am advised. As well, the penalty amount, of course, is informed by the Legislation Interpretation Act.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Earlier we learnt about the auditing role of the Electoral Commission and now we are learning about the seriousness of these offences. Can the minister advise the additional resources that will be provided to the Electoral Commission for the investigation work to ensure that the act is being complied with and what the process of prosecution will be? At what stage will the Electoral Commission build a case before it hands over to the Director of Public Prosecutions or some other body, police or whoever it is, and where will it go in order for charges to be laid?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I thank the member for Unley for the question. I observe that if there were other offences then it may be that other agencies, including South Australia Police, may well be involved in the investigation. But so far as an investigation might follow, for example, an audit, and it may be necessary for there to be additional resources expended by or exhausted by the Electoral Commissioner, then, of course, they would call on the resources that are available to them.

The government is contemplating what additional resources the Electoral Commissioner might require and, as I have earlier indicated to the house, consultation was undertaken with the Electoral Commissioner.

Clause passed.

Clauses 62 and 63 passed.

Clause 64.

Mr TEAGUE: I note that subclause (5)—this is the clause dealing with review, and there is to be a review shortly after the next election—provides for the appointment of reviewers before 1 January 2027, with the review to be completed nine months after that, so that is making it about 18 months after the election. I note the recommendation of the authors of the October review of the bill. They describe themselves as 'the panel' and made the observation:

The Panel considers that there are aspects of the proposed reforms that would benefit from further consideration and additional evidence when it becomes available. Accordingly, the Panel recommends that a review be conducted into the operations of the reforms implemented under the Draft Bill subsequent to the 2026 election. Such a review should be completed within 12 months.

Bearing in mind that it is not a matter of many years later, is there any particular good reason why that recommendation could not be adhered to? Is there any particular magic in not commencing until later and then reporting later?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I thank the member for the question. Respectfully, it is a very good one. There is a process following an election where, for example, an additional series of reports might be furnished including, for example, by the Electoral Commissioner to whoever might then be the minister of the day and presumably, also, to other interested parties should the reports be published.

Accordingly, it was a practical consideration to adopt the timeframe that is proposed or contemplated to ensure that that post-election reporting, separate to the reporting contemplated by the bill, can have concluded. In consequence, the reviewers will then be armed with that additional information in the conduct of the review that the bill contemplates.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Subclause (4) provides:

(4) The Minister must not appoint a person under subsection (2) if the person is—

(a) a current employee or executive of a registered political party; or

(b) a current Electoral Commissioner or a member of the Electoral Commissioner's staff; or

(c) a current or former member of the Parliament of South Australia.

Why were staff of members of parliament or ministers not included in that list?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I thank the member for Unley for the question. A policy decision has been taken to ensure that the members conducting the review, the persons conducting the review, are not only sufficiently independent but perceived to be sufficiently independent.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: So under this legislation, Rik Morris could be appointed to this committee; is that correct?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: Chair, the member for Unley invites me to speculate in relation to certain employees. I am unable to assist the member for Unley.

Clause passed.

Mr TEAGUE: At this point, and in accordance with the standing orders, I move:

The reconsideration of clause 21.

It is standing order 253. In so moving, I do so in the following particular circumstances. As is well known, the clauses that are the subject of the bill that is returned from the Legislative Council are in strikeout form and, where convenient, the government in this place properly moves their passage through the house.

In relation to the form of clause 21 that was moved, it was one of those strikeout clauses, so we are dealing, therefore, with the absence of that clause, and the amendment that was moved was a new clause—it was not available to the committee in the strikeout form. So, the committee, indeed the house, is receiving for the first time in its appropriate form whatever might be filed in terms of the amendment.

All that means is that it is appropriate for the purpose of the record that the committee has the benefit of that amended form of words, and we can all pick up and run with it and, as I have indicated, it is an amendment the substance of which I am familiar with, and I have had notice of it. For the purposes of the committee, it is important there is an opportunity to interrogate that and to, therefore, get to grips with what has occurred.

I can indicate, in a completely uncontroversial way, having taken objection to a previous ruling, I do not cavil with it. The committee has moved on and the ruling was that it was inappropriate to then turn back midstream, as it were, to seek the opportunity to ask a question. That is an opportunity that I would seek to take on the reconsideration. I can indicate to the committee that will take no longer than approximately 30 seconds, so far as I am concerned.

Motion carried.

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I move:

That clause 21, as printed on a separate schedule, be agreed to.

Mr TEAGUE: I want to ask my question in the course of that reconsideration. That is the bit I foreshadowed takes 35 seconds. Can the government identify the amendment to that which is set out in the version received from the Legislative Council and the effect of that amendment?

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: I thank the member for Heysen for the question. I emphasise, as I have earlier emphasised, that the section I wish to take the committee to and the member for Heysen to is at page 42, line 35, inserted section 130Q(9)(a)(v)(B), $8.00 be deleted and substituted with $5.00. And at page 43, line 10, inserted section 130Q(9)(b)(iv)(B), $8.00 be deleted and substituted with $5.50. The very crisp answer is that there is a typographical error and the figure needs to be replaced.

Mr TEAGUE: With the result that the substantive effect of the formula is as advertised, for want of a better effect, and with the typo it would be a substantial unintended departure from the formulation as advertised.

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN: Yes, although I observe, of course, that it could easily have been corrected by regulation and/or under what is potentially colloquially known as the slip rule.

The CHAIR: The question is that clause 21, which needs to be inserted but printed on the separate schedule, be agreed to.

Motion carried.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. D.R. CREGAN (Kavel—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services, Special Minister of State) (22:09): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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