House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1) 53 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Local Government (Elections) (Voting) Amendment Bill Local Government (Elections) (Voting) Amendment Bill Local Government (Elections) (Voting) Amendment Bill Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 3 July 2014.) Mr GRIFFITHS House of Assembly Goyder Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:18): By standing, I have a right of reply opportunity not only to having moved this, and listened to other speakers on it, but also to recognise the contribution made by the member for Giles, from the government, indicating that the government, and to quote the words— The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: If the member speaks he closes the debate. Mr GRIFFITHS House of Assembly Mr GRIFFITHS: I respect that, sir. I did say that, I believe, at the start. The government has indicated that it does not support this bill, but the member for Giles goes on to explain some circumstances where I believe there is a level of support for it, but they do seek an opportunity for it to be reviewed after the elections in November this year, in the fullness of time after that has occurred. From my point of view, I have a recent letter from the Local Government Association that discusses its continued support for it. In recognition of that occurring, I believe it is quite appropriate that it does take place. My bill brings about changes from 1 January next year, but I just want to take up a couple of points that were made by the member for Giles in his response on behalf of the government. He said that, until the 2010 government elections, those entitled to the property franchise did not need to be enrolled to vote. However, having worked in local government, and I respect the fact that the member for Giles was an elected member for some time, I conducted elections and counted votes and that was the case: you did have to exercise a request to be enrolled on what I would then term to be the supplementary roll because, without being on some form of roll, how can you qualify the validity attached to that ballot being put in place? This was before postal votes. This is when there was a vote day conducted, as state and federal elections are, and people came into the voting booth, asked for the voting paper, were provided with it and their name was crossed off one of the two rolls that existed, and the reason for that vote was exercised. That is not quite correct, and the member for Giles might want to reflect upon that. I acknowledge that there have been calls from some quarters, including from some councils, to reinstate the automatic enrolment. Again, that is a slight variant in being not correct either. For me there is still a requirement for an enrolment to be physically lodged. Yes, there is an entitlement to be part of that enrolment but it is not an automatic situation that by being a property owner or a business lease operator or a lessee in an area where you are not on the House of Assembly roll for an automatic right to exist. It still has to be provided in an electronic or written form for that vote opportunity to be registered. The government has indicated at this stage that it is not prepared to support it. In my conversations with the Minister for Local Government he has said that, as part of the wider-reaching review of the Local Government Act that he intends to conduct in coming months which will, no doubt, create legislative requirements to be considered within this place next year, he has a measure of personal support for it. I believe they are his words, but if I have misrepresented him I apologise—and for it to be part of that wider review that he undertakes. That does fit in with the government's position of not supporting it, because he wants it to be part of a wider review. I think it is an appropriate time. I have had responses from 19 or 20 councils in the affirmative. There was one that was concerned about it but the Local Government Association, as the peak body, has supported it. Even recognising that changes did occur a relatively short time ago (in 2009), it is a great opportunity for democracy to work well. It is providing the easiest possible opportunity for as many people as we can possibly get to be involved in what I consider to be an exceptionally important level of government—local government—and to exercise their rights and to ensure that they vote for who they believe to be the absolute best representatives to make decisions on their behalf. I commend the bill to the house and I hope that the government has reconsidered its position somewhat. The house divided on the second reading: Ayes	18 Noes	21 Majority	3 AYES Bell, T.S. Chapman, V.A. Gardner, J.A.W. Griffiths, S.P. (teller) Knoll, S.K. McFetridge, D. Pederick, A.S. Pengilly, M.R. Pisoni, D.G. Redmond, I.M. Sanderson, R. Speirs, D. Tarzia, V.A. Treloar, P.A. van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. Whetstone, T.J. Williams, M.R. Wingard, C. NOES Bedford, F.E. Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K. Caica, P. Close, S.E. Digance, A.F.C. (teller) Gee, J.P. Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J. Hildyard, K. Hughes, E.J. Key, S.W. Koutsantonis, A. Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K. Piccolo, A. Picton, C.J. Rankine, J.M. Rau, J.R. Snelling, J.J. Vlahos, L.A. Wortley, D. PAIRS Evans, I.F. Weatherill, J.W. Goldsworthy, R.M. Brock, G.G. Marshall, S.S. Kenyon, T.R. Second reading thus negatived.