Bills

Local Government (Members Contesting State Elections) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

Mr PISONI (Unley) (10:32): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Local Government Act 1999. Read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr PISONI (Unley) (10:33): I move:

That this bill now be read a second time.

The bill came about after the bill that was introduced by Mr Tung Ngo in the other house that the Liberal Party does not support. We do not support it because, although we support the principle of the bill, we do not support the method in which it is being applied. We also had some concerns about the fact that there were different starting times for the leave to be enacted between endorsed party candidates and Independent candidates, and we thought that needed to be consistent.

So, the bill that we are introducing today is the Local Government (Members Contesting State Elections) Amendment Bill 2017, and what the bill basically does is give members of council an automatic leave of absence at the introduction of the writs in the lead-up to a state election, if they are in fact candidates for a state election.

The bill will clarify a lot of the debate that happens in the lead-up to an election when candidates for the state parliament are also serving members of local council. At every election, we know there are many members who are candidates for major parties, candidates for minor parties or Independent candidates who feel that there is community support for them to put themselves forward to represent their communities more broadly in the state parliament.

We live in a wonderful democracy in Australia and a very accessible democracy, I must say, where the political process is available to a wide range of members of the community. It does not matter how modest your beginnings are or what status you have in life in Australia, we have a very democratic and accessible system of democracy for people to both participate through the voting system or to go to that next stage and put themselves forward, either as a member of their local council or as a member of a state or federal parliament. I am very proud of that. When I visit countries overseas and discuss such matters with members of Congress or members of parliaments, I always point out how accessible our system is to everyday members of our community in Australia. I think it is something we should be very proud of.

Getting back to the point of the bill, there is always some debate, if you like, about when is the right time for a member of council to step down if they have nominated to be a political candidate for a state election. The bill makes it very clear that the appropriate time would be at the time that the writs were issued and that would become an automatic process; the member would be on leave. It is an amendment to the Local Government Act, rather than the Constitution Act, which was the proposal by Mr Tung Ngo in the other place when he brought his bill to the parliament. We believe the concept is sound, but amendments to the Local Government Act are, in fact, a more appropriate way in which we could do that.

This is a very simple matter. My colleague the member for Bragg, the shadow attorney-general, met with Mr Ngo about his bill. He considered that the effect should be different between a political party and Independent candidates. We do not actually agree with that. We think it should be the same for all candidates so we do not have different rules for anybody in Australia. It does not matter where you are from, who you are, where you were born, what school you went to or whether you are a member of one organisation or another, we simply do not have different rules.

Philosophically and practically, we did not feel that that was an appropriate part of Mr Ngo's amendments to the Constitution Act. We are saying that, when the writs are issued, all candidates should then, in fact, stand down or be placed on leave. We also think that should be an automatic process. There should not be a need for any application to do that. It should just be automatic and that is what our bill provides for.

There is no intention to impose any penalty under Mr Ngo's bill. We agree with that. We think it simply needs to be clear as to what the expectation is. The ultimate penalty, of course, is the penalty at the ballot box. If people feel that they can try to break the law, then I am sure those on election day will take into consideration whether or not that person is worthy of supporting for higher office. It is simply not necessary for there to be a penalty, other than a penalty that is in the hands of the public of South Australia.

There is no intention or effect in the bill to impose a disqualification on a candidate, if elected, or form the basis of a challenge to the validity of the election if they do not stand down. We believe that, if they are elected on the basis of breaking the rules, they have the blessing of their community in order to do that. That will be something they will have to manage through their entire political career.

The intention here is to make it very clear to those who sit on council—and I recommend experience in local government for those who feel they want to contribute to their community in a slightly more committed way. From 1991 to 1993, when my wife and I were newlyweds and before children, I was a member of Prospect council, and it was a very valuable experience. I would have continued my time on the council had we not moved to Hyde Park, where my business was located. It gives you a good understanding of the services offered by local government and the demand for those services. It gives you some idea of just how bureaucratic some very simple decisions can be at a local level.

At the moment, it is a challenge for local government in South Australia to engage its constituents. We know that only 30 per cent of people, particularly in metropolitan Adelaide, turn up for council elections. In my view, it is not a solution to make council elections compulsory. We need to look at why people are not as engaged in the local government process as they are in other democratic processes. I know that it is hard to compare when there is compulsory voting at a state and federal level.

Countries like New Zealand, for example, have a very high turnout for voluntary voting at their government elections. I am sure that if voluntary voting were applied at the state and federal level we would still be one of the countries in the world with the highest level of participation, but we do not see that reflected in our local government elections. I think that is a challenge for local government. It is not for others—for example, the Parliament of South Australia—to find solutions for local government to force people to fill out a ballot paper.

As a matter of fact, with postal voting, I do not know how you would compel people to vote. You could argue that postal voting is equivalent to people turning up at a polling booth; the only difference is that the polling booth is coming to you. In effect, you could argue that we do in fact have compulsory attendance at council elections and we still only get 30 per cent of people participating, but I digress.

In reinforcing the bill before the parliament today, I urge the parliament to support it. It is timely. We will have a state election on 17 March next year. We know that in previous elections there have been people who have held positions such as mayor or councillors who have participated in the state election process; some have been successful; some have not. There has always been a debate about the appropriate time for those candidates, if they do decide to step down from their council duties, to do so. This clears that up. It makes it very easy for people to understand what the expectation is by the legislation spelling it out.

I think that it will enable more significant issues to be debated about what candidates offer in their electorates, rather than when they should be stepping down from their council duties, which I would argue is probably more of a distraction than the debate about policy and character, which are the important things we should be discussing in the lead-up to an election. I urge the chamber to support the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.R. Kenyon.