House of Assembly Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Local Government Elections Local Government Elections Mr TELFER House of Assembly Flinders Mr TELFER (Flinders) (15:17): It is fair to say it has been an eventful week and a half for local government here in South Australia. The last day we were sitting here, the local government minister stood up and told the house that, in his words: …a significant number of council members, 46 to be exact, have failed to lodge their campaign returns to the Electoral Commissioner of South Australia and that, therefore, their positions as council members are likely to become vacant. We heard that he had met with the Electoral Commissioner, who told him about the scenario and seemingly had assured the minister of the robust nature of the process that they had followed. We also heard that members' offices became vacant and they could make an application to the South Australian Civil Administrative Tribunal to have their positions restored, and about the concerns of ECSA that the window of one month for these members to start proceedings was closing. He used words like 'deeply disappointing' and 'outrageous' to describe the situation in which he sheeted all the blame at the feet of those individual council members for their failure to get their paperwork in on time. Almost immediately after that statement, I started receiving phone calls, messages and emails from people from all around the state who had experienced issues with the way the election process had been carried out and the way the Electoral Commission online portal had performed. These stories came from a variety of people, including those who had successfully got their paperwork lodged—eventually. This has left me with too many unanswered questions, especially after some of the explanations that we have heard since from both the minister and the Electoral Commission. What conversations had the minister had with the Electoral Commission about any concerns that there were around the local government elections? You would think that a minister whose core focus is local government may have asked a question to perhaps get an update, but apparently (and we heard again today) he only found out the day that he announced it in parliament, which was nearly two months after something should have been known about it being wrong and there being issues with the process. How many complaints has the Electoral Commission had about failings with the online portal? How many phone calls did the Electoral Commission get from candidates frustrated with trying to upload their documents? How many documents had to be emailed in separately, texted in or even walked in to ECSA? The dates when the paperwork became overdue are pretty uncertain, and the words from the minister only make things more convoluted, but my understanding from advice on the act is that those candidates who were elected unopposed needed to have their form in by around 12 December. The Local Government (Elections) Act provides that if a person fails to submit the return within that time the returning officer must as soon as practicable notify the person of that fact by letter sent to the person by registered mail, as there is only 30 days' grace after that period. You might think that 'as soon as practicable' might mean the day that it becomes overdue or perhaps the week following. It seems those letters were dated 12 January, seemingly the day on which some of these candidates actually lost their positions, with so many of those people only receiving that letter in the mail on the day of or after they had technically lost their positions. I hardly think that is 'as soon as practicable', as is a legislated obligation. How did that become so delayed out of the commission's office? Has the minister been asking these questions? Seemingly, from today, it's hands off the wheel: 'Nothing to do with me.' Has he been continuing to simply blame individuals or the Local Government Association or the legislation, or the shadow minister? What a joke. How is it that the advice on the timing of reporting provided to members who were elected unopposed has been the same advice given to those members who had a contested election, even though the timing is different according to the legislation? Had the Attorney-General, as the minister directly responsible for the Electoral Commission, received any reports or information from the commission about their concerns around a delay in receiving important documents? We have received no clarity on any of these details and that is why, as shadow minister, I am calling on the government to instigate an independent investigation into all ECSA and Office of Local Government processes, timings, communications and other relevant information—so that there is clarity around responsibility, mistakes are not repeated and failings can be rectified. These unfortunate circumstances have unfairly put a blemish onto local government as a whole, and it is not good enough. It is not a joke like those across the hall seem to think it is. This whole scenario is deeply worrying, and perhaps it is time that Minister Brock should consider the future of his position.