Chapter 6 - After the election
The return of the writs may mark the end of the official election period, but the state election does not end there for ECSA. In the weeks and months that follow, we close our Returning Officers’ premises, pay thousands of election staff, sort and process the tonnes of materials and equipment returned from polling places, and securely store the nearly two and a half million ballot papers cast at the election.
ECSA must also commence important regulatory obligations, including the investigation of any apparent cases of multiple voting, the enforcement of compulsory voting through the non-voter process, the auditing of electoral participants compliance with their election funding, expenditure, and disclosure provisions, and the reimbursement of electoral participants who participated in the election funding scheme.
In the months after the election, ECSA also commences a comprehensive review of the conduct of the election. This involves a range of feedback review and integrity check activities to evaluate our performance across the entire electoral process. ECSA examines how the election went from the perspectives of the candidates, parties, electors, and the many categories of staff who worked at it.
It is through this scrutiny and evaluation of what took place that ECSA can work to improve its preparation and service delivery for future elections. Through our evaluation of this election, several recommendations for legislative amendments emerged, as well as proposals to improve our operating procedures. Taken as a whole, these changes will, if implemented, bring about a substantial modernisation of the high-quality electoral services ECSA aims to provide for South Australians.
In Chapter 6 - After the election...
Court of disputed returns
As in 2018, no petitions were lodged with the Court of Disputed Returns following the election, meeting ECSA’s strategic priority to deliver high-quality electoral services by having no election challenged and upheld due to an administrative error.
Investigation of multiple voters
This was the first election conducted with the use of the EMO system in place of paper certified rolls, where electors are marked off using a pencil and ruler.
At the conclusion of voting, a review of records in the system was conducted to determine whether any apparent multiple mark offs were logged. A small number of apparent multiple records were recorded in the EMO system; however, following further investigation (including the timing of records), it was concluded that there was no evidence of voting activity consistent with multiple votes.
Complaints
In advance of the election, ECSA published a feedback and complaint policy and developed an online complaint form, which were included on the ECSA website and in candidate handbooks. At the candidate briefing sessions held prior to the election, political parties and independent candidates were provided with a thorough explanation of the policy and complaint lodgement and management processes.
In handling complaints, the Electoral Commissioner was supported by a team of complaint management staff. In addition, the Attorney-General’s Department provided a senior solicitor as additional resourcing, and the Crown Solicitor’s Office provided senior solicitors on call throughout the election to provide dedicated legal advice in the specialised field of electoral law. ECSA is grateful to the Attorney-General’s Department and Crown Solicitor’s Office for their assistance.
There was a significant increase in the number of complaints at this election in comparison to previous elections.
A total of 199 complaints were received, containing 218 alleged breaches of the Electoral Act that required investigation. This compares with 85 alleged breaches in 2018. The following table provides a breakdown into categories of the alleged breaches.
Alleged breaches of the Electoral Act by category:
Outcomes of alleged breaches of the Electoral Act
Misleading advertising
Of the 117 allegations made, 9 retractions were requested, 11 requests for cessation of further publication were made, 2 remedies were requested, 2 warnings were issued, 83 were found not to breach the Electoral Act, and for 10 complaints, insufficient evidence was provided to properly assess the complaint.
Authorisation
Of the 40 allegations made, 9 requests for cessation were made, 7 requests to amend the advertisement were made, 3 warnings were issued, 16 were found not to breach the Electoral Act, and for 5 complaints, insufficient evidence was provided to properly assess the complaint.
Size limitations of signage
Of the 16 complaints received, 2 remedies were requested, 6 were determined not to be in breach of the Electoral Act, and for 8 complaints, insufficient evidence was provided to enable a determination.
No matters were referred for prosecution in 2022. A breach of authorisation requirements or size limitations would only be considered where the breach was the result of intentional or repetitive action. It is also worth noting that breaches of the misleading advertising provisions are assessed by the Electoral Commissioner based on the balance of probability. For a prosecution to be successful, it would need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt with a higher burden of proof.
The public also made several complaints about signage, most of which involved a misunderstanding of ECSA’s responsibility under the Electoral Act. As with the 2018 election, complaints were also received in relation to political party involvement in postal vote applications.
Among complaints from members of the public about ECSA’s services, some of the major issues concerned postal voting (particularly problems with voting packs arriving late or not arriving at all) and polling place accessibility, wait times, or facilities. These complaints were exacerbated by the COVID safety measures put in place at polling booths.
The feedback and complaint policy sets out that ECSA will acknowledge complaints within 2 business days and resolve most complaints within 5 business days of receipt. At the election, these benchmarks were not met in most cases due to the unexpected and significant increase in the number and complexity of many of the matters.
For the first time, ECSA engaged with social media platforms early to address any possible misinformation published regarding the election. On one occasion, these relationships were utilised to report content that was possibly in breach of the platforms’ policies. This resulted in a flag being placed on the relevant content by the platform to advise viewers that it was not accurate information.
Outdated legislation for a digital era
Of all the matters covered in the Electoral Act, the ones that create the most difficulties at election time are those covered by Part 13, Division 2—Electoral advertisements, commentaries and other material. Given the number of complaints that arise at state elections alleging breaches of sections of this Division, and the potential for political controversy surrounding these complaints, it is essential that this area of the Electoral Act be kept applicable and up to date.
However, Part 13, Division 2, has not been kept up to date over the years and is now showing its age and inability to deal with new situations that have arisen due to technological change, particularly the challenges surrounding digital campaigning.
The current provisions of the Electoral Act predate the proliferation of social media, digital apps, and other digital channels never contemplated by legislators and are inadequate for regulating electoral advertising and commentary on these channels.
ECSA intends to undertake a review of Part 13, Division 2 of the Electoral Act during 2023. This will include consultation with the registered officers of the political parties to seek their views, along with the electoral commissions of other jurisdictions to see how their respective legislation has been modernised to address these challenges. It is anticipated that this review will be finalised later in 2023, with any recommendations for legislative change brought to the attention of Parliament.
The significant challenges of regulating misleading advertising
South Australia is one of only 2 jurisdictions in Australia and one of just a few in the world that has legislative provisions regarding misleading advertising. Under section 113 of the Electoral Act, it is an offence for an electoral advertisement to contain ’a statement purporting to be a statement of fact’ that is ‘inaccurate and misleading to a material extent’.
There are common misconceptions regarding the application of section 113. For a breach of this section to be determined and for the Electoral Commissioner to intervene, a number of elements must be established. The subject of the complaint must be an electoral advertisement that contains electoral matter, defined as matter calculated to affect the result of an election. The electoral advertisement must contain a statement purporting to be a statement of fact. Opinions and predictions of the future cannot be considered statements of fact, as neither a person’s opinion nor the future can be proven. Finally, and most significantly, the statement must be shown to be both inaccurate and misleading to a material extent; one of these alone is insufficient for the Electoral Commissioner to intervene.
One of the challenges the misleading advertising legislation introduces is that, by necessity, the onus is on the complainant to demonstrate that a statement is inaccurate and misleading. ECSA is unable to materially investigate matters to help make determinations and relies on the information provided by the complainant. However, in a number of cases at the 2022 State Election, despite the introduction of an online form with inbuilt instructions, complainants disregarded the instructions and either failed to provide sufficient information or failed to articulate exactly what they alleged to be inaccurate and misleading and provide the evidence to support their view. This resulted in ECSA having to follow up with complainants for further information before the complaints could be investigated.
A further obstacle to the rapid resolution of alleged breaches of section 113 is the need to seek comment from the person or organisation against whom the complaint has been made. This generally necessitates subsequently seeking further information from the complainant in a back-and-forth manner, which invariably causes delays beyond ECSA’s control. However, as soon as ECSA receives all the necessary information, making a determination can be relatively quick.
Further delaying resolution of matters where a respondent has been requested to cease publication or publish a retraction is the respondent disputing the request. This practice became more common throughout the election than it had been previously, and there were several occasions where multiple pieces of correspondence were exchanged between ECSA and the respondent, arguing the content of a retraction or the way it should be published. In some instances, this delayed the publication of a retraction by several days and caused a level of frustration among complainants.
Challenges have also begun to arise in relation to what constitutes an electoral advertisement, particularly as it relates to social media. The legislation does not provide a definition of ‘advertisement’, and so differing dictionary definitions are being presented to argue whether material constitutes an advertisement.
Candidate and political party feedback
ECSA wrote to all registered political parties that participated in the election, seeking their feedback. Only the 2 major parties responded, with both responses generally positive. The main areas identified for ECSA to focus on were:
As usual, ECSA conducted a post-election survey of candidates to evaluate their satisfaction with the services provided. Candidates who provided an email address were invited to complete the online survey.
Highlights of the survey are listed below:
CANDIDATES’ FEEDBACK ABOUT THE ELECTION |
Elector surveys
ECSA engaged Kantar Public to conduct its traditional post-election survey of electors to understand and evaluate electors’ perceptions of and satisfaction with the election.
Overall satisfaction with the voting process at the election as a whole was high, with 89% of in-person voters being very or quite satisfied. This represents a slight decline from the overall satisfaction rating in 2018, which was 90%.
Demographic analysis has revealed that in 2022, regional voters were more satisfied than metropolitan voters (93% vs. 87%), and voters aged 18–24 were more likely to be neutral about the experience compared to voters aged 25 or older (15% vs. 5%).
There is only a small proportion of voters who were very or quite dissatisfied (6% in 2022), in line with the proportion who were very or quite dissatisfied with the voting process at the previous 2018 election (5%).
The main reasons for dissatisfaction with the voting process included the length of time it took (27%), and various difficulties electors experienced while voting (21%).
The majority (85%) of voters agreed or strongly agreed that ECSA’s conduct of the state election was impartial and without bias, a significant increase since 2018, where 79% of voters agreed.
Fewer voters felt neutral about ECSA’s impartiality in 2022 compared to 2018, with a significant decrease in the size of this group from 17% in 2018 to 12% in 2022.
The size of the groups that disagree has remained constant, at around 4% for each election since 2014. Reasons for disagreement in 2022 included changes to electoral boundaries and a general lack of trust in politicians and the media.
ELECTOR FEEDBACK |
COVID-19 impact on the election
Overall satisfaction with the way the election was managed considering COVID-19 was very high, with 86% of voters satisfied or very satisfied at an overall level.
Most voters were aware of the additional precautions put in place in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly the hygiene measures in place (90% awareness) and social distancing measures (86% awareness).
Satisfaction with the COVID-19 protocols in place was high, including with the hygiene measures in place (92% satisfied or very satisfied), the bring your own pencil initiative (93% satisfied or very satisfied), and the social distancing measures, where satisfaction was still very high overall (86% satisfied or very satisfied).
Postal voting
The majority (89%) of postal voters were very satisfied or satisfied with the postal voting process, and many felt it was easy, simple, and convenient.
A very small group (4%) of postal voters felt dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, with the most mentioned reason for dissatisfaction relating to the delay between applying for a postal vote and receiving the ballot papers.
In-person voting services
Overall, 89% of in-person voters surveyed were quite or very satisfied with the voting process. The proportion of in-person voters who were quite or very satisfied with different aspects of the voting experience was as follows:
Wait times
While most (84%) in-person voters were satisfied with polling wait times, the actual wait time estimates were highly variable. Around half (50%) of those who voted in person estimated that they waited under 5 minutes. A further quarter (23%) waited between 6 and 15 minutes, and the remaining quarter (28%), waited longer than 16 minutes, with 18% waiting longer than 26 minutes.
On average, voters estimated waiting 13.5 minutes, up from 8.4 minutes in 2018 and 3.8 minutes in 2014. Regional voters were less likely to be affected by waiting times of over 15 minutes, and they were more likely to be satisfied with wait times.
Attitudes towards early voting
One highlight of the survey was South Australians’ support for expanding early voting services. When asked whether all electors should be allowed to vote at an EVC in the fortnight before polling day without needing to provide a reason and sign a declaration, 81% agreed that they should, with only 12% opposed. More than one-third of respondents who believe early voting should be permitted (37%) rated the convenience and lowering of barriers as their main reasons.
Awareness issues
Two significant issues that the electors’ survey highlighted were low public awareness of the voting options available and low recall of ECSA’s advertising campaign at the election.
Regarding awareness of voting options, many electors were ignorant of some of the key voting options available to people unable to vote at a booth in their own district on polling day, with 55% of electors unaware of the existence of early voting and 66% unaware that they were allowed to vote at any polling booth anywhere in the state. There was, however, a significant improvement in the number of electors aware they could apply for a postal vote at this election, with only 19% unaware of postal voting compared to 33% at the 2018 election. These figures all highlight the need for ECSA to better advertise the voting options available to electors to ensure everyone in South Australia can exercise their democratic suffrage.
Regarding ECSA’s advertising campaign, awareness of the campaign among electors remained low in 2022. As in 2018, 31% of electors were able to recall ECSA’s advertising campaign or slogan when prompted with a description. This highlights the difficulties electoral commissions face in breaking through with advertising in the new media environment.
Non-voters
Electors who did not vote at the election were actively sought out in the electors’ survey to better understand their behaviour, perceptions, and attitudes. Most non-voters (55%) did not consider voting in the election. There were a variety of reasons given for why they did not vote, with the most mentioned being that they believed they were not enrolled (50%), or that they were sick or had COVID-19 (14%).
Non-voters were far less likely than voters to be aware of alternative voting options available to electors who were unable to vote in their electoral district on polling day: 74% were unaware of early voting, 75% were unaware they could vote at a polling booth outside their own electoral district, and 50% were unaware of postal voting. While 95% of non-voters were aware that voting is compulsory, unsurprisingly, their support for compulsory voting was much lower than that of voters (42% vs. 81%).
ECSA staff surveys
Feedback from staff is valuable in providing a perspective from the coal face on how the election was delivered. Staff feedback leads to many concrete improvements to ECSA’s service delivery.
Nine surveys were undertaken of all electoral officers who worked at the election, with 4,784 responses received. A survey of ECSA head office staff was also undertaken.
The feedback from these surveys was a significant input into the formal evaluation of the state election undertaken by ECSA after the election. It will continue to be used over the next 4 years to closely analyse and improve ECSA’s planning and procedures.
Employment
The results of the surveys reflect some of the complexities of delivering this election:
However, despite these somewhat negative results, 90.7% said they were interested in working for ECSA at future elections (down from 96.8% in 2018).
COVID-19
On a scale of 0–5 (with 0 being extremely unsafe and 5 being extremely safe), staff gave a rating of 4 overall for how safe they felt working at the election amid the pandemic.
Services to electors
Training
Satisfaction with training was lower at this election than at previous elections. Altogether, 87.9% of staff indicated that the training they had received helped them to understand their roles, and 83.1% stated the training had helped them to confidently undertake their tasks (down from 92.8% and 91.7%, respectively, in 2018).
However, among staff employed in managerial roles, satisfaction with training was significantly lower. Among returning officers, EVC managers, and polling booth managers, on average 72.7% considered their training had helped them understand their roles, but only 66.7% considered it had helped them confidently perform their duties.
Attitudes towards ECSA’s new online training were also mixed; among the different categories of staff surveyed, the average satisfaction level with online training was 67.2%. However, among some categories, satisfaction levels were significantly higher, including hygiene officers (89.2%) and polling officials (85.7%).
Non-voters (enforcement of compulsory voting)
One of ECSA’s key tasks in the wake of a state election is to follow up with those electors who appear not to have voted. The number of non-voters at the election increased significantly, and while this abstention can be partly attributed to the increase of the electoral roll through automatic enrolments, the apprehension around the COVID-19 environment was likely a major factor.
Under section 85 of the Electoral Act, electors who appear to have failed to vote at an election are issued a notice within 90 days of polling day, giving them an opportunity to provide a valid reason as to why they did not vote. In June, notices were issued to 84,419 electors, up from 63,715 in 2018. Of those, 48,034 either failed to respond to the notice or provided an unacceptable reason for not voting, and in July they were issued a $104 expiation notice.
Expiation reminder notices were subsequently issued in early September to 37,146 electors who had failed to respond previously, requesting payment of $172 by 3 October, the due date for expiating the offence.
Expiation notices were sent to the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit for enforcement across January and February 2023. Approximately 30,500 expiations are expected to be enforced.
ECSA noted opposition from some non-voters at the Victims of Crime Levy (the Levy) being applied to their expiations. Following the increase to the Levy since the 2018 State Election, it now represents over 90% of the total sum that non-voters are fined.
Furthermore, under the Electoral Act, electors sent an apparent failure to vote notice are required to respond by completing, signing and returning the paper form. ECSA notes that this requirement is now out of step with contemporary methods for citizens to communicate and interact with government
NON-VOTERS, 2010-2022 |
Ballot paper audits
After each state election, a detailed audit of ballot papers is conducted to analyse informality, ticket voting, and compliance with HTV cards. This is done to evaluate the success of the procedures, materials, and training used at the election and identify areas for improvement and opportunities to increase efficiency. More detailed findings of the ballot paper audits will be provided in ECSA’s stand-alone statistics report after the analysis has been completed. Key highlights from the audits include:
Informality
An audit of ballot papers for the House of Assembly found 36,469 ballot papers recorded as informal, a decrease from 4.1% in 2018 to 3.2%. Ticket votes saved 31,786 votes in 2022 that would otherwise have been informal, bringing the informality rate down from its real level of 6.1%. One interesting finding was the notably lower informality rate of declaration votes compared to ordinary votes (2.6% vs. 3.6%). This is likely due to the age profile of declaration voters, who tend to be older and therefore have more experience voting.
The key finding from the audit is that the vast majority (75.5%) of informal ballot papers were cast intentionally by voters, with 42.5% left blank, 26.6% containing marks and messages but no preferences, and 6.4% containing dismissive numbering. Only 24.5% of informal ballot papers appear to have been cast unintentionally.
The districts with the lowest informality were Bragg, Dunstan, and Unley, each with 1.8%. The district with the highest informality rate was Taylor, at 5.2%.
In the Legislative Council election, 40,840 ballot papers were recorded as informal, a decrease from 4.1% to 3.6% since 2018. This came despite the number of candidates increasing and a corresponding increase in the size of the ballot paper, factors that are traditionally held to lead to a rise in informality.
Informality ranged from 1.9% for electors from the district of Unley to 5.3% for those from the district of Taylor. In the audit of informal ballot papers, the key finding again was that the majority (63.3%) of informal ballot papers had been cast intentionally by voters, with 41.1% left blank and 22.2% containing marks or messages. Of the 36.8% of ballot papers where it is assumed they were unintentionally informal, roughly half were attempts to vote above the line with multiple first preferences, and half were attempts to vote below the line without enough valid preferences to be formal.
HTV card compliance
In the 15 districts audited, only 7 out of the 85 candidates failed to lodge HTV cards. One candidate out of the 85 lodged a card that expressed a choice between 2 alternate sets of preferences. The audit of ballot papers for those candidates who lodged a card found that 33.3% of formal ballot papers were consistent with their HTV cards, compared to 37.7% in 2018 and 42.8% in 2014.
Funding and disclosure
Education and engagement
This was the second state election conducted under the provisions of Part 13A (Election funding, expenditure and disclosure) of the Electoral Act.
In the lead-up to the election, ECSA engaged in a number of activities intended to educate and inform participants in the scheme about their funding entitlements and compliance obligations. ECSA produced several explanatory guides providing information about the funding and disclosure concepts covered by the Electoral Act and Regulations as well as step-by-step instructions to assist with completing disclosure returns using ECSA’s online portal. To assist participants in meeting their statutory deadlines for lodgement of returns, ECSA produced a detailed timetable of dates for use by participants during the capped expenditure period of the election. In addition, face-to-face and online briefing sessions were conducted for participants, including political parties, candidates, groups, and other relevant entities such as third parties and associated entities.
ECSA also maintained regular communication with participants through email, telephone, and a weekly newsletter issued during the high-frequency return period of the election.
Stakeholders
The funding and disclosure stakeholders for the election are summarised below:
Election funding
The election was the second time that electoral participants in a state election in South Australia had the opportunity to receive public funding towards election costs. This scheme is covered by Divisions 4 and 6 of Part 13A of the Electoral Act and allows for a reimbursement of political expenditure for eligible participants who keep within the expenditure limits set out in the above divisions.
Following on from the results of the election, 189 House of Assembly candidates qualified for election funding. A total of 10 were independent candidates, and the remainder were candidates endorsed by 9 of the 11 registered political parties.
A total of 14 registered political parties contested the Legislative Council election, with 10 parties qualifying for election funding. Among those 10 parties, 3 contested the Legislative Council election only, and of those 3, only one qualified for election funding. No independent groups or candidates qualified for election funding.
Based on the political expenditure disclosed in the capped expenditure period returns lodged by these candidates (or their agent, where applicable), no candidate exceeded the spending caps set out in section 130Z of the Electoral Act, and therefore no penalties were applied to reduce the eligible payments.
Payment was legislated to be made in the period ending 120 days after polling day, and all payments were made in this timeframe (apart from a payment to one independent candidate who was late in lodging his return).
2022 State Election expenditure and funding:
Lodgement of disclosures
During the designated period of a general election, the following returns are required to be lodged with high frequency:
The designated period for the election commenced on 1 January 2022 and ended on 18 April 2022. The lodgement schedule for the designated period included 13 return periods with stipulated return due dates.
The disclosure threshold applicable during the election was $5,576.
Participants are only required to start lodging returns upon the commencement of their disclosure period, which varies for different participants. For more information on the different disclosure periods, please refer to the relevant guides on the funding and disclosure section of ECSA’s website
In addition, participants who incurred more than $5,576 in political expenditure during the capped expenditure period (1 July 2021 to 18 April 2022) were required to lodge a ‘Capped Expenditure Period Return’ to report their expenditure. Participants in the election funding scheme also needed to lodge this return to claim public funding.
Donors were also required to lodge returns to disclose donations of more than $5,576 during the capped expenditure period. There were 2 due dates for donor returns to be lodged: one for donations made up to 31 December 2021, and one for donations made during the designated period between 1 January 2022 and 18 April 2022.
Reportable donations totalling approximately $400,000 were disclosed by parties and candidates between 1 July and 31 December 2021 and approximately $580,0001 during the designated period. During the same periods, donations totalling approximately $130,000 were reported by donors but nominated by the recipient parties as having been received for non-state electoral purposes.
In addition, although donations under the reportable threshold are not required to be disclosed, ECSA was advised of approximately $55,000 in under-threshold donations for this period.
1 This does not include a donation of $125,000 from the Victorian branch of the CFMEU initially received and then returned by the Australian Labor Party (SA Branch).
Audits
The election funding, expenditure and disclosure provisions allow the Electoral Commissioner to undertake investigations for the purpose of ensuring that participants have met their obligations under Part 13A of the Electoral Act.
ECSA is currently planning to conduct an audit of election funding claims and will also consider whether any further audits are required.
Observations
This is the second state election conducted under the provisions of Part 13A of the Electoral Act 1985.
Administration and compliance
It was generally observed that the incidence of compliance by registered political parties with deadlines for lodgement of returns (party returns, bulk audit certificates, and capped expenditure period returns) generally mirrored that of the 2018 election. About 89% were lodged on time, with most non-compliances coming from parties newly registered prior to the election and perhaps not as familiar with the disclosure regime.
The timeliness of lodgements by associated entities also ran at about 89% (an increase in non-compliance compared to the 2018 election). Aside from 3 entities, most delays in lodgement were short in length as ECSA identified real-time instances of non-compliance and contacted the relevant financial controllers to request rectification. Entities identified as third parties during the designated period of the election were generally cooperative and sought to meet their compliance obligations. Again, any lodgement delays were generally short due to ECSA intervention, and the 72% on-time lodgement figure would have been better if not for the late self-reporting of an entity that sought independent advice to ascertain whether it met the definition of a ‘third party’ under the Electoral Act.
Independent candidates and groups appeared to have the greatest difficulty meeting the timing obligations for the provision of campaign donation returns, bulk audit certificates, and capped expenditure period returns. About 79% of returns were lodged on time (a slight improvement from the 2018 election), although in most cases (with one notable exception), the absence of these returns was rectified with a delay of only a few days, and candidates then complied with the timing requirements for future return lodgements. Most returns by candidates and groups during the designated period of the election were lodged on a ‘nil return’ basis.
Donor compliance also remains a substantial issue. Although recipient-side donations were generally disclosed on time, many donors do not meet their obligation to lodge a donor return without intervention from ECSA. Whilst this requirement to disclose the donor and the recipient side of any gift can provide a useful ‘check and balance’ on disclosure, it does require significant time and effort on the part of ECSA staff to reconcile returns. Whilst some donors do not understand their requirement to lodge a donor return, transparency of disclosure is generally provided by the recipient parties. In cases where disclosure has only been made by a donor, the reason can usually be ascribed to the disclosure of items that do not constitute ‘gifts’ (either by amount or definition) or are designated by the recipient party as being for a ‘non-state electoral purpose’ (and therefore are not required to be disclosed under section 130C of the Electoral Act).
Although a significant amount of oral and written guidance is provided to all participants, it remains a challenge to get parties, candidates, and other relevant entities to engage with the information available. ECSA’s limited resources continue to be strained by the requirement to review many returns during the high frequency lodgement cycle of the designated period, pursue late returns, approve amendments and changes to returns, and continue to provide education and assistance to participants to meet the compliance regime in force during the election.
Legislative review
ECSA plans to undertake a further review of the funding and disclosure scheme to revisit the recommendations made in the July 2019 ‘Report into the Operation and Administration of South Australia’s Funding, Expenditure and Disclosure Legislation’ and to make suggestions for legislative change to address inconsistencies or propose improvements.
Disclaimer
Copyright © Electoral Commission of South Australia. Published 2023. All rights reserved.
No part of this report may be reproduced by any process, except in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968
Printed copies of this document are available from: Electoral Commission of South Australia
Level 6 / 60 Light Square, Adelaide SA 5000.
Phone: 61 8 7424 7400