LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ELECTIONS) (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 27 October 2008. Page 4407.)

New clause 4A.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I was part-way through my comments in relation to the reasons for my amendment to insert new clause 4A, which would provide for local government election cycles of three years instead of four years. As I, and others, said in the second reading debate, this amendment is consistent with our position of supporting three year terms. There is considerable concern in the community that a four year term in local government is too long for people to make the big commitment to stand for election and be successful as a councillor or mayor in local government.

We fully understand that it is a big commitment. There is a considerable amount of reading and a lot of time needs to be committed, and the sheer number of meetings that are required to be attended by councillors and mayors makes for a very large commitment in people's lives to a role in local government.

Some members of the community are not attracted to making that commitment over a four-year term. There has been anecdotal evidence from people who have talked to a range of members on not only this side of the house but also on the government side that, if it had not been four-year but three-year terms, they may well have run in local government elections. The government, particularly the minister, is taking measures to improve the profile of local government in terms of voter participation and, I understand, the number of candidates and the level of interest in the community of candidates to run in local government elections. It is for those reasons that I have moved the amendment.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Obviously, the government is very aware of the commitment that people make in standing for election to local government, and whether it is three or four year terms, their commitment to serving their community should be appreciated and applauded. We accept that when the legislation was changed in 2005 this was a controversial move, but it would appear that this issue has not been raised since.

During the independent review, I understand there were 20 responses to the question 'What change, if any, should be made to the timing of local government elections? For example, do they need to be further apart from state elections in a different year?' Six respondents recommended no change to the current provisions, nine proposed a different year, three proposed that it be held at the same time as the state election and two proposed only that November was not a good time. As I understand it, there was not a single response to this question that suggested we should revert to a three-year term.

We heard during the second reading contributions that members were concerned about cost to local government in relation to promoting election campaigns. If we accepted the opposition's amendment, we would have an election every three years instead of every four years, so there would be four elections in a 12-year period rather than three. I think we could argue that that would be a significant cost put on local government.

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Well, it is significant—

Mr Goldsworthy: Of course, you can have four elections—

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Yes, I am not saying you can't. I am saying—

Mr Goldsworthy: You don't have to be a professor of mathematics to figure that out.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: No, I am not saying that. What I am talking about is the cost. As I said previously in response to the second reading contributions, we have not even yet finished the first four-year term, and it is suggested that four-year terms will discourage candidates from standing. The simple facts of the matter do not support this, and again I referred to this in my response. However, so that people are clear, there were 1,236 candidates in 2006, a record number of nominations since the amalgamations of the 1990s and an increase of 3 per cent over the previous elections in 2003. The ratio of candidates to positions available was the highest on record, so these assertions do not seem to be borne out in fact.

New clause negatived.

Clauses 5 to 7 passed.

Clause 8.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I move:

Page 4, lines 13 to 15 [clause 8(1), inserted paragraph (a)]—Delete:

'person is enrolled as an elector for the House of Assembly in respect of a place of residence within the area or ward; and' and substitute:

person—

(i) is enrolled as an elector for the House of Assembly in respect of a place of residence within the area or ward; or

(ii) is a ratepayer in respect of rateable property within the area or ward and is the sole owner of that rateable property; or

(iii) is a ratepayer in respect of rateable property within the area or ward, is the sole occupier of that rateable property, and is not a resident in respect of that rateable property; and

This amendment relates to the issue that was again highlighted in the second reading contribution concerning those people who are automatically entitled to be enrolled for local government elections. The bill proposes to create, one could say, two classes of ratepayers. The first class who are automatically entitled to vote are those who are resident ratepayers and the other class of potential voters are those who are non-resident ratepayers. So, the government in this bill is trying to create two separate categories of ratepayers and, therefore, voters. I would have thought it would be against ALP policy to create a class structure, if you like. It is certainly against our policy. We support an egalitarian society. I am a little surprised that the government has looked to bring about these changes. It puts the onus and responsibility onto those non-resident ratepayers to have to enrol to make application to the chief executive, I think the bill states, to enrol to be eligible to vote.

Strong representations have been made to the government from a number of areas. There have been strong representations from the Property Council in relation to this issue, that it is basically disenfranchising a section of the ratepayer community, and also from a Local Government Association region, the Southern and Hills Local Government Association. The Southern and Hills Local Government Association comprises some quite significant district councils: the Adelaide Hills Council, Alexandrina Council, Barossa Council, Kangaroo Island Council, the District Council of Mount Barker, The Rural City of Murray Bridge, the City of Victor Harbor and the District Council of Yankalilla. The state Liberals have received correspondence from the Southern and Hills Local Government Association. In part, that correspondence states:

The government proposes this change as a strategy to raise the voter participation rate in local government elections, purging those who now have a vote but may not exercise it from the roll. By requiring this class of electors to undergo a commitment test prior to each election, the strategy is that only the very interested will complete the registration and then vote. The argument is that there will be less cost than maintaining the roll in the current manner. These provisions will impact on those councils that have a high proportion of shacks and holiday homes in the area. There are several member councils that would be affected by these proposed changes. This association is opposed to these changes as certain ratepayers will be required to separately register to vote, thus creating two classes of ratepayers. It should also be noted that some councils affected have completed their representation reviews based on their current electoral roll should the representation provisions be enacted and a reduction in registration result. As planned by the government, the outcome will be variants of greater than 10 per cent of representation that could continue for eight years should Part 2 of the bill also be enacted.

As I said, a number of large councils are affected by the government's proposal. In relation to non-resident ratepayers, I also have some statistics to provide to the committee. We understand that Yankalilla, Kangaroo Island and Robe councils have 46 per cent, 54 per cent and 60 per cent respectively non-resident ratepayers. There are some quite compelling statistics in relation to the impact on 60 per cent of Robe's ratepayers having to make application to enrol to vote. Other arguments also put forward were that it was costly, a burden administratively, and time consuming for the councils to maintain these roles.

As I said in my second reading contribution, the councils have this information. They have the ratepayer database. For an officer employed by the council to match the House of Assembly roll to the non-resident ratepayer database, we do not think is terribly onerous. The Property Council does not think it is terribly onerous. All those other councils—the Adelaide Hills Council, Alexandrina Council, Barossa Council, Kangaroo Island Council, the District Council of Mount Barker, the Rural City of Murray Bridge, the City of Victor Harbor and the District Council of Yankalilla—say that it is not onerous. All right, there are 68 councils out there, maybe some of them did not respond. These are big councils. A fair proportion of the state's population live in these eight or nine council districts, so for the government to ignore that is at its peril.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: The member for Kavel refers to the legislation as creating two classes of ratepayers. Let us be really clear: that was the situation prior to this legislation being introduced. What we have is a class of resident who applies for commonwealth-state enrolment and is automatically enrolled on the local government roll. You have to apply to go on the roll to be a voter in a federal election or a state election, and you are then eligible to vote for local government.

The anomaly under this legislation allowed property franchisees not to have to apply. They did not have to take any action to enrol, they automatically had it, and so you had two classes. These people have an additional privilege and all the legislation is doing is asking them to enact that privilege, just like we enact the privilege to vote in a state or federal election. The honourable member made reference to Yankalilla and to the fact that the Liberals do not think it is a particularly onerous task requiring someone in a council to match up the resident database—

Mr Goldsworthy: Nor do those other councils that I mentioned. So, do not pick and choose what you are talking about.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: No, I am going to use exactly your example. Let us compare apples with apples. You do not think it is a particularly onerous task for them to do that. I am not going to reflect on the work that would be undertaken by a large council because they do have significant resources and it is a fact that local government, I think, actually supports the legislation as it has come into this house. The Local Government Association itself agrees with this position.

Let us talk about Yankalilla. What was the figure you quoted? You said that 46 per cent of people would be entitled to a property franchise. I understand that, in the last election, an officer of Yankalilla council spent an estimated 124 hours of working time—the equivalent of more than three working weeks—doing nothing else but updating the voters role, including detecting and removing duplicate names. The council at the time had 5,060 properties. After she completed her task, she had a roll containing 2,764 property franchisees. Only 611 voted. What does that tell you?

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: My question is to the mover of the amendment. What discussions did he have with the LGA in relation to this amendment and what views did they express to support or otherwise?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: The LGA was supportive of the proposal in the bill.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: My question then is: given the LGA's position, what is the basis of his then wishing to move this amendment?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: We are actually a political party and we make up our own minds in relation to what we support and what we do not in legislation. There has been a multitude of occasions where both the government members and the opposition members agree or choose to disagree in relation to representation that is made to them by whatever industry group or stakeholder group or whatever you like. It is freedom of choice. I do not actually understand the reason for the question because I thought that would be pretty obvious.

The member from Mount Gambier is an Independent member and one makes one's decisions on the merits that are presented. We had representation from other key stakeholder groups being, obviously, a regional association of the Local Government Association—the Southern & Hills Local Government Association—and the Property Council. The Property Council is regarded by both sides of the house as a fairly significant stakeholder organisation within the state.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: The reason for my question to the mover of the amendment might become clear. Given that he acknowledges on the record that I am an Independent member, therefore you would expect him to seek to explain the amendment to me and seek my support, but that did not happen. I wonder whether he approached any of the other minor parties or crossbench members in support of his amendment and, if not, how could he seriously at this stage be canvassing any support for it?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: It is based on the numbers in the house. The government opposes it; we support it. We moved the same amendment in the other place. If members were interested in the legislation, they would have kept abreast of the debate in the other place and been aware that that amendment was moved and that we would be moving it here. Bearing in mind the dynamics in the house, again, I think the question is irrelevant.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 9.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I move:

Page 6, after line 24 [clause 9(4)]—Insert:

(14a) A person is entitled, on payment of the fees fixed by the council, to a copy of the voters roll in printed form.

This amendment relates to access by members of the community to the voters roll. At the moment any member of the public can purchase a copy of the roll. The suggestion put forward has been that an electronic copy be provided to candidates. The government has opposed that suggestion, and so do we. However, what the government also wants to implement is that any member of the public can only visit a council office, inspect the roll and then, I presume, record any details that person wishes to record. We do not see the necessity for that. We think the current arrangements are fine.

So, in line with our position on the Electoral (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill when that was debated in both houses, and consistent with that position, we think that any member of the public can purchase a copy of the roll. I understand the argument the government puts forward that it may be used for inappropriate activity, but I am not aware of any examples of inappropriate use of the roll. There may well be, but consistent with our position on the Electoral (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill that is what this amendment is about.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: The Electoral (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill proposed amendments to restrict the availability of the electoral roll to the public and it would be futile to override that with this legislation. We do not think that it is appropriate for marketing companies and the like to have access to the electoral roll, so we will not be supporting this amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 10 and 11 passed.

Clause 12.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I move:

Page 7—

Lines 24 to 31 [clause 12, inserted section 19A(2)]—Delete subsection (2)

Lines 32 and 33 [clause 12, inserted section 19A(3)]—Delete:

', for the purposes of subsection (2)(a), forward a copy of the profile of each candidate' and substitute:

forward a copy of each candidate profile supplied under section 19(2)(b)

This concerns the legislative requirement that the LGA must construct a website and publish candidates' details and the like. On this side of the house, we do not believe it is necessary to legislate such a measure. We think it is better suited to a policy decision of the LGA so that, if it wishes, it can publish the candidates' statements and information on the website. If I am correct, the LGA is seeking a commitment from the government to assist in funding the construction and maintenance of that website—that is, if this clause of the bill is passed.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Again, the government does not support this amendment. One of the reasons identified for low turnout at previous local government elections is the perceived difficulty people have in finding out information about the candidates standing for election. I understand that the LGA is concerned about the cost of this proposal, not the suggestion that information be provided. In our official response to the recommendation of the independent review, we agreed with the review's recommendation that the government, through the Office for State/Local Government Relations, would provide cash and/or assistance in kind—that is, web servers and the temporary service of administrative officers for web publishing. The government is offering substantial assistance to the LGA in setting this up.

Amendments negatived; clause passed.

Clause 13 passed.

Clause 14.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I move:

Page 8, lines 21 to 23—Delete this clause

This relates to ballot papers. The clause provides, 'as soon as is reasonably practicable after 4pm, on the day'. We have 68 councils in the state and we think that it is not necessarily convenient or appropriate that that time frame be set for each and every one of those 68 councils. We are moving to delete that so that it allows some flexibility for each council to manage its own affairs in conjunction with the returning officer.

This amendment provides some flexibility for each and every one of those 68 councils. It may well be that the majority of councils will adopt the proposal as outlined in the bill; however, 4pm, or as soon as practicable after that time, may not be appropriate or suitable for those in rural communities. They may still be out working on their farming properties or involved in other activities and it may be inconvenient for them to meet at the appropriate location to complete this process. As I said, it is a matter of providing some flexibility.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: My question is to the mover. In his explanation it seems that the mover was not only speaking against the amendment but also against the provision in the original bill. He now seems to have reflected on both the bill and the proposed amendment to the bill. Can he clarify that? If his amendment was to be supported, we would simply, from my understanding, revert to the bill, which he has spoken against.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Just for clarification, I may not have been as clear as I could have been. I admit that to the member. We want to delete the lines in clause 14 (page 8, lines 21 to 23) that stipulate the requirement for that process to take place as soon as is reasonable practicable after 4pm. The amendment is to delete that clause in the bill, thus not putting any time limits on individual councils to carry out that process. If I was not clear in my original explanation about what the amendment seeks to achieve, then I hope that I have clarified it.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: The reason for the insertion of that time frame is to avoid exactly what the member for Kavel is talking about. We understand that people do not have time to hang around and wait for hours and hours. At the close of nominations, it is not unreasonable to expect that people would have some idea of the time that the ballot draw would occur. If you do have farmers out harvesting, for example, they would not want to be in there hanging around for four, five, six or seven hours waiting for this to occur. This clause specifies a time for the ballot to occur or, as reasonably as possible, after that time—as close to that particular time as possible. It rectifies the issue that the member for Kavel is concerned about but which he is arguing against with his amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 15 to 20 passed.

Clause 21.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I move:

Page 10, lines 28 to 30 [clause 21, inserted section 91A(8), definition of prescribed contract]—Delete the definition of prescribed contract and substitute:

prescribed contract means a contract entered into by a council for the purpose of undertaking—

(a) road construction or maintenance; or

(b) drainage works.

An amendment to this bill was inserted in the other place, and it introduced the concept of a prescribed contract being a contract for a large sum that could be entered into by a council during an election period. As members would know, often there has been debate in this place about the appropriateness of councils in their last few days entering into significant contracts, whether they be employment contracts or construction contracts. That can be very controversial, notwithstanding any public consultation that may have occurred, and it does tie a newly elected council to the contract.

We do not want the new requirement for a caretaker period to disrupt the normal and uncontroversial infrastructure maintenance works program of a council during an election campaign, so we are inserting this particular definition of prescribed contract, be it for road construction or maintenance, or drainage works.

There has been consultation with the Local Government Association, which has wanted wider inclusion of what might make up a prescribed contract. However, we are moving this amendment, and I make the point that the Local Government Association is aware that it may approach the minister if it considers that other types of major contracts need to be excluded from restrictions during the caretaker period. I do not want to commit the minister to any specific matters, but I understand she is willing to consider other examples from the LGA for later inclusion in regulations.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clause (22), schedule and title passed.

Schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for Families and Communities, Minister for Northern Suburbs, Minister for Housing, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability) (16:43): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I reiterate my thanks to those people who were involved in the very extensive consultation that was undertaken in the preparation of this legislation. It was far reaching and people's views were taken on board. We very much appreciate the support of the Local Government Association that partnered us in this process. We think this is a good piece of legislation that will support local government and encourage greater participation in local government elections. I thank the opposition for its general support for the legislation, and I also thank the officers who worked diligently in preparing the legislation to come before the house.

Bill read a third time and passed.