Bills

Local Government (Elections) (Voting) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 19 June 2014.)

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (10:57): I am pleased to speak in support of the bill the member for Goyder has brought to the house because I had some involvement in this particular issue several years ago when I was shadow minister for local government and the piece of legislation was brought to the parliament to change the act to put in place the voluntary registration of what you could regard as non-resident ratepayers.

If my memory serves me correctly, and I think it does in this regard, one of the reasons for this provision being included in the legislation back in 2009 when the act was changed was a review had been undertaken and one of the recommendations from that review was that nonresident ratepayers not be automatically included on the roll. From my recollection, that was supported by the local government sector, particularly the Local Government Association.

I also recall (being the shadow minister for local government at that time, I had responsibility for the carriage of that legislation in the house) that some amendments were moved on this side of the house not to include that provision in the act, namely, not excluding the automatic enrolment of nonresident ratepayers. However, that amendment was lost, as was the will of the parliament. I do not think it was supported: I cannot recall—obviously, it was five years ago—but it did not win the day, so it fell away. Before that part of the time line we obviously supported the automatic registration of non-resident ratepayers and we took it to the March 2010 election as part of our local government election policy.

What eventuated in subsequent local government elections in the latter part of 2010 was a significant decline in voter participation concerning non-resident ratepayers. It was not only non-resident ratepayers but I think participation right across local government elections was reasonably poor.

Subsequent to that, I became aware that the local government sector, and particularly the Local Government Association, appeared to change its position in relation to its view on enrolment of non-resident ratepayers, to the point where I recall hearing in a media interview where it was said that they had not supported the exclusion of non-resident ratepayers from being automatically enrolled.

I may be mistaken, and I am happy to come back to the house to correct the record if I am, but I think my memory serves me correctly. I might not be everything to everybody but I think I have a reasonably good memory for things that have transpired where I may have had some responsibility and involvement in over the years. Be that as it may, it appears—

An honourable member: Always got your ouija board!

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I'm not going to respond to that; that was part of yesterday's speeches. I am pleased that the Local Government Association has revised its situation and is supportive of the member for Goyder's proposition in relation to the bill. The Liberal Party maintained that policy position right through the preceding four years to the March 2014 election and it was part of our local government policy position at the most recent election. As I said, the member for Goyder is looking to implement our policy position in relation to this matter in bringing this bill to the house.

In my understanding, it has quite strong support from the Local Government Association and from a number of individual councils that have contacted the member for Goyder in relation to his consultation process. The reason that was given five years ago (or even before that when the review was being done) was that it was overly administrative; it was administratively burdensome for local government to collate a non-resident ratepayer roll.

I questioned that at the time because councils have a number of databases. They obviously have their ratepayer database and they have the House of Assembly roll database and I did not think it would be terribly difficult to overlay the two. However, the reasons given were that it was too time-consuming, too costly and basically just too much hassle for them to get around to collating a roll of that nature. However, because the vote was so dismal in 2010 they obviously did have a change of view about it.

Notwithstanding all that, we fast-forward some five or so years and we are now in the house debating this. I strongly urge the government to get behind this piece of legislation and support it. Obviously we are all looking significantly to the independent members of the house to support it because it is a common-sense approach.

It is a sensible thing to put in place. People who own businesses and own homes in council areas pay their rates and contribute to the local economies with their businesses and the like, so I think they have every right to be automatically included on the roll and be able to vote at council elections. That is the proposal before the parliament and I urge every member of the place to support it.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (11:05): I rise today to support the bill from the member for Goyder which seeks to reinstate automatic re-enrolment on the voters roll for all eligible South Australian businesses and property owners. Currently, in South Australia, if you are already on the state electoral roll to vote in the state election, or federal election for that matter, you will be automatically included on the council voters roll and will receive voting papers by post; that is if you are an individual.

Following legislative changes in 2009, if you are a landlord, a business lessee, a non-resident property owner or resident non-Australian citizen, you are no longer automatically included on the council voters roll, so unfortunately we are in a situation where a good proportion of our ratepayers are in fact not eligible to vote in local government elections unless, of course, they register. We have local government elections coming up later this year in November 2014—they have four-year fixed terms as we do in this state parliament—so I think the bill is very timely. It will allow those who probably would not otherwise take the opportunity to vote to make the most of that opportunity.

Reinstating automatic re-enrolment will make it easier for South Australians to exercise their democratic right to vote. Historically, local government has had relatively low—quite low, in fact—participation rates and, indeed, the government had a target to increase voter participation rates in local government elections to 50 per cent by 2014. Certainly, at the moment, it does not look like being anywhere near that and, in fact, historically, a lot of local government elections have had participation rates of around 30 per cent. Probably the only time it ever gets above that is if there is an interesting mayoral contest, which does happen from time to time, or if there is a particular issue that voters view as important. Involvement is all important; participation is all important.

For a lot of South Australians, most of the interaction they have with any tier of government is with local government. For better or worse, we have three tiers of government here in Australia. We have a federal government, a state government and local governments and it is the local government—the local council—that is responsible for the really important things in people's lives. They are responsible for roads, rates and rubbish. It is an old cliché, I know, but the reality is that that is what is important to people, and often, the further we travel away from metropolitan areas, the more important local government becomes and the bigger is its role in people's lives.

I have nine local government areas in my one electorate of Flinders spreading across Eyre Peninsula. Just outside that area, included in the seat of Giles, are the District Council of Kimba and also the city of Whyalla, giving a collection of 11 local government areas which are all members of the Eyre Peninsula Local Government Association—a very responsible, diligent and important organisation that brings all these far-flung local government areas together on a monthly basis.

My opinion is that strong and active local government is vital. As I said, it is one of the three tiers of government and, more often than not, it is the one interface that people have. Strong local government will result from having strong local involvement. That means all ratepayers should have the opportunity to exercise their right to vote and, for that reason, I support the bill and I urge the government to consider this very carefully and look to support it. Obviously it has been floating around as topical for a number of years and I commend the member for Goyder for his work on this and wish him well with this bill.

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (11:10): The government does not support the bill at this time, I think for some very logical reasons that will be explained in due course. Given that the intention of the bill is to include a measure that would not be implemented until the 2018 local government elections, it is premature for the parliament to consider making a decision on this proposal before a thorough analysis is undertaken of the forthcoming local government elections, which conclude in November this year.

The Local Government (Elections) Act 1999 was amended in December 2009 to remove the automatic enrolment of property owners to be included on the voters roll for council elections, with the exception of the City Of Adelaide. The provision was passed by parliament based on the recommendation of an independent review of local government elections in 2008, and I recall it was supported by the Local Government Association (which had been involved in the review) at the time.

Until the 2010 government elections, those entitled to the property franchise did not need to be enrolled to vote, and their entitlement existed whether or not they chose to exercise it. It is certainly the case that, historically, relatively few property owners choose to exercise their property franchise right to vote in local government elections as opposed to their rights as residents.

Under section 13A(2) of the Local Government (Elections) Act 1999, councils have the responsibility to inform potential electors—except for those electors already on the House of Assembly roll—of the requirement to apply to be enrolled on the voters roll in order to be entitled to vote. For the 2010 local government elections the Electoral Commissioner provided all councils with various materials to send to property franchisees notifying them of enrolment provisions and inviting them to enrol to vote. I am advised that while most councils sent out the relevant material and promoted this, it appeared this was not uniformly the case. I am further advised that relevant business and property bodies did not uniformly provide information to their members.

I acknowledge that there have been calls from some quarters, including from some councils, to reinstate the automatic enrolment of property franchisees to vote in local government elections. This is in spite of the 2008 independent review finding, based on feedback and information from councils, that:

…councils incur significant expense in compiling and maintaining a separate voters' roll for local government elections…in most cases, the vast majority of this effort is wasted in respect of the 82.8 per cent of property franchisees who choose not to vote.

The Local Government Association has canvassed this with its member councils. As a result of this consultation the LGA board has decided to support the proposed amendment bill in principle and to consult further with councils on the cost and resource implications of the proposed change. At this stage—and I emphasise at this stage—the government considers it is more practical to encourage councils to promote voter enrolment to the eligible voters for the forthcoming November elections, to carefully monitor the results of the elections with regard to this issue, and then to include this issue in the review of the 2014 local government elections that will be undertaken.

The bill proposes that the automatic enrolment would not come into effect until 1 January 2015, as it is widely recognised that it is not practically possible to reintroduce this measure in time for the November elections. Indeed, I am advised that councils have already sent out information to property owners not on the roll inviting them to enrol to vote if they wish to do so. The government believes it is sensible to review the outcome of the 2014 local government elections first before the parliament is asked to make a decision about this proposal, which could not be put into full effect anyway until preparations begin for the 2018 local government elections.

The member for Goyder, in his second reading explanation in support of the bill, acknowledged that the amendment was 'relatively minor', but he did go on to qualify that claim and, in the interest of fairness and context, the full quote is: 'The amendment, while relatively minor, is important.' The change to the act in 2009 generated little interest at a local government level. I was a council member at the time and it did not come on the radar as an issue of significant concern.

I note that the member for Goyder endeavoured to seek the views of councils throughout the state, and all credit to him for making that effort. The interesting thing about the exercise is that most councils did not respond, and various peak organisations also failed to respond. Of the 68 councils in South Australia, only 19 provided a response. I am not in a position to say what the views of the councils that did not respond are but, as someone who was heavily involved in local government for over two decades, I think I can reasonably claim that the issue does not rank highly when it comes to the diverse priorities facing councils.

My comments do not reflect on the substance of the bill put by the member for Goyder, but they do reflect on the importance and the timing of the bill. There is no urgency, so I repeat that the issue can be reviewed after the local government elections in November, and can be reviewed in a broader context. What is now a priority for local councils and the communities that they represent is the Abbott government cuts to a range of programs and funding sources that directly impact on local councils. As an indication of the deep concern expressed by councils, I will quote a letter from the City of Whyalla. The letter states:

At its meeting held on Monday 19 May 2014, Whyalla City Council discussed the removal of the Federal Government's South Australian Road Funding Program.

From these discussions, and as a result of the impact across local governments in South Australia, Council resolved to:

Express dismay and a strong objection to the Federal Budget decision to cut funding to South Australia for local roads, noting South Australia is the only state to receive such a cut.

Make the Whyalla community aware of the impact of the cuts such as:

Removal of OPAL (Obesity Prevention and Lifestyle) program

Preventive health is always the easy target. It is always the easy target for governments—and I have to say governments of all persuasions—because it represents a long-term program that generates significant savings and significant improvement to quality of life. However, unfortunately, preventive health in the health field is nearly always the first to be hit. I can indicate that, in my region, OPAL was an incredibly successful grassroots preventive health program and, across the state, I think it was a very effective program that has now been totally destroyed.

The second point about the cuts the council letter makes is that those cuts will reduce their infrastructure spending and cause the possible future removal of their rate concessions to seniors because of the complete walking away from a partnership agreement with respect to concessions for seniors. So, that is something that is exercising the minds of councils at the moment.

Time expired.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Speirs.