Statutes Amendment (Local Government Elections Review) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 17 September 2025.)

Mr TELFER (Flinders) (16:48): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Local Government Elections Review) Bill 2025 and, in doing so, indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition.

We could probably say this bill has been a long-awaited one. It is now nearly three years since the local government elections, and I note that the work to consider potential legislative changes in the shadow, or in the light, of those elections I think was started under the previous local government minister, Minister Brock, at the time and has continued on under Minister Szakacs. It has been long awaited because we had to wait for the Electoral Commissioner's review of the local government elections.

That extended for what I think is an unacceptable period of time, because we are at the stage now when we are considering changes to the local government elections process in some of the last few sitting days of this parliamentary term, and the next parliamentary term will only have a small number of sitting days and it will be too close to the next local government elections for that cohort of parliamentarians to be considering changes without there being a significant impact on local government elections. So this is a last-minute attempt to look at what changes can be brought in for the local government elections process.

The Electoral Commission review took over two years to be delivered to us, and that was probably because of the wideranging number of complications that that local government election brought up. We cast our minds back to, firstly, some of the complications around the reporting processes. Some of the responsibility for the shortcomings in that process certainly lay at the feet of those elected members who missed a step in the process, but I believe also there were some real shortcomings in the way that was managed with the obligations that are legislated on the Electoral Commissioner through that process around the communications with elected members right across the state on their obligations and what they were required to do.

The ramifications of that were pretty significant; that is, there were dozens of elected members who technically had to be removed from their positions. This is why I say I think the delay in the Electoral Commissioner's review was exacerbated by that as well. We see that there were a number of different elections around the state that were actually undermined by some of the processes that were followed.

To have a situation such as we had, for instance, at the Adelaide Plains Council—where we had a portion of the elected member cohort who were technically not elected because of the failing of a push-button process at the Electoral Commission, and for that to only be discovered a significant period of time after that mistake and the rectification of that taking even longer—really did, in my mind, put at risk not just the reputation of that democratic process but also the confidence of the community in that process. That was something that was obviously front and centre for the minister at the time but also for the community.

We also had the complicating factor of the Court of Disputed Returns process, which prolonged the results of the local government elections. In the end, in the case of the City of Adelaide, it got to the point of annulling the results and a supplementary election being required more than two years after the result was declared. So this has been long awaited, but being long awaited I was hoping there would be some real substance in what we would be considering as part of the response from the government in trying to frame up their response to what changes could be made to the Local Government (Elections) Act.

There are a number of different bits and pieces and I want to step through them and look at a few of them individually in my contribution. In doing so, I highlight that there are some aspects that the opposition supports, there are some aspects where we will be seeking amendments—whether in this place or the other place—and there are some aspects that we do not support, for reasons that I will explain either now or in future contributions.

One aspect in particular on which there was obviously a significant amount of attention in the last local government elections was the qualifications of electors who were able to vote within a local government election. Under the existing rules, you do not need to be a citizen of the country to vote in local government elections; indeed, non-citizens can vote after being in a council area for only a short period of time. This was part of the complication, I guess you would say, within the City of Adelaide election, which was highlighted by the process that followed the appeal to the Court of Disputed Returns and the end result of what actually happened.

It has long been my position and the position of our side that we believe that you need to be a citizen of this country to be voting in local government elections. Indeed, that aspect of the bill I welcome. There are some uncertainties, and I hope to flesh out with the minister through the committee stage the way they will frame these changes within this legislation. On my reading of this legislation, they have made the eligibility with this amendment to only include those individuals who are on the South Australian electoral roll.

We have this situation, obviously, in local government elections where your qualification is within your local area if you are on the electoral roll within it, and that is straightforward for individuals. But for those who are landowners, business owners or property owners in a council area but do not necessarily live in that area there is a supplementary roll that is required for those who are qualified to vote in that council election.

This is especially pertinent, as I said, with business owners and landowners, and it allows them the capacity to be able to vote in a local council area where they have a direct interest in there being a positive outcome for the community. Maybe it is a landlord who rents out their property; they have a real interest in making sure that decisions that are made around some of the services and infrastructure delivered by their council are done so in an effective and efficient way. A business owner might have a direct financial interest in what decisions are made by that local government area.

The part of this bill that I am going to be asking questions about, with the definition as I read it as put in this piece of legislation to amend the Local Government Elections Act, speaks about the state electoral roll. On my reading of it, this does not allow for individuals who have an interest—a business interest, a property interest or otherwise—in a council area, who perhaps live interstate, to vote within that council election. I will run through some scenarios to try to highlight why this is something that I think needs the attention of the government when considering this bill.

It is especially pertinent within border communities, where a property owner—a farmer, for instance—may live on one side of the border for whatever reason. They might live in Victoria—I would not recommend it; but sure—and may hold a significant landholding on the South Australian side of the border. Whether that is in the area of the Tatiara District Council or whether it is down in the District Council of Grant, the business owner will have a direct interest in that council area. However, on my reading of the proposed legislation a person will not have the capacity to be able to use their voting power to ensure that they put forward candidates whom they think would suit best the needs and wants of the community.

So you could have that scenario, where the property owner is just over the border or, for instance, some of our communities that are closer to the border have people who spend half their time on one side of the border and half their time on the other. They may have a holiday home in Robe, for instance. That one springs to mind, but there are a number of South-East councils or holiday areas right around the state. People can spend half their time in one state and half in the other, but they are enrolled to vote in a state apart from South Australia.

I know a lot of individuals and families in my electorate, for instance, who live in the Northern Territory and spend half their time at Coffin Bay or Port Neill. They have a direct interest in what happens within that community, and in the investment that council makes into services or infrastructure. Under this legislation, and the way I read it, they will not have the opportunity to enrol in a supplementary roll to have their voice heard. This puts at risk Australian citizens who are landowners or business owners to potentially be disenfranchised by this process and not have the ability to have their voice heard.

I understand the reasons behind it. As I said, the aspect around Australian citizenship I absolutely support and I think it is a positive change which provides some clarity and some direct democratic advantage. But as to the aspect around the interstate voters, I will be seeking some clarity from the minister and will certainly be considering what potential amendments we might put forward.

There is another requirement within these changes for councils to hold what are called public information meetings for prospective candidates. This is where, in the lead-up to an election when the nominations have come in, there is a requirement within this proposed amendment to the legislation for that council to hold public meetings for those prospective candidates. There is an aspect where a council can decide to opt out of that obligation, if they put it within their caretaker policy. I see this as an about-face as far as the process goes because you could potentially have a situation where a council term decides to either include or not include the capacity for there to be a public meeting but that elected member body is completely at odds with what the prospective candidates for the upcoming local government election could be.

Changes could be put forward through the caretaker policy—that is, the policy each council has to have in place to bridge that gap between when the local government election nominations are open and when the final results are declared, that caretaker period. That policy itself can only be changed prior to those nominations being received and put in place. This really does set up for a layer of uncertainty and division which is not necessary.

The other aspect of this obligation to require a public meeting is that each of the 68 council areas are very different. As someone who has experience within regional councils, I know that the obligation to require a council to have a public meeting may not necessarily be welcomed. But it also does not really provide the structure for what the expectation is around who puts that meeting together. In the caretaker process, the CEO of a council takes on a lot of the day-to-day management of a council. To potentially have a situation where a CEO would be required to take charge of the structure and delivery of a potential public meeting could put them at odds with whoever their future employers might be.

In a situation where you have a council election where the CEO's future employers are going to be contesting an election, you could have a situation where a CEO is making decisions which could advantage or disadvantage an individual candidate—for example, a potential elected member. This could be in a scenario where the certainty around who the facilitator of such a meeting would be, who makes the decisions about the amount of time each candidate gets to speak, the questions that are allowed or the decision as to whether there is a threshold of behaviour or misbehaviour that a candidate might engage in, who makes the decisions to not include them in that process?

This aspect is an unnecessary one. I am surprised that it came forward within this piece of legislation because in all the feedback that I received, and I am sure the minister received comparable feedback from councils and communities, I did not see this as a subject that was brought up with me as one that they saw as necessary to be rectified through legislation.

There are some aspects that we will be supporting, for simplification of the process or adding in extra layers. One, for instance, is the capacity for telephone voting which within this piece of legislation is now extended as per state election regulations. I think this is a sensible change and I know it is one which local government supports in the feedback that I have been hearing from councils all around the state, to make sure there is not that capacity for a cohort of the community to be disenfranchised by a process.

We do know that the local government elections process is a little bit nuanced compared to a state election, where it is a vote-on-the-day system. Local government elections are a postal vote, and there are nuances that come with that but, under existing arrangements, there is that risk that there are people who have challenges with accessibility for that postal system that might be advantaged by having a telephone voting process in place. So we certainly support that aspect.

One part of the local government elections process that I have been hearing about over and over again from councils right across the state, especially in regional areas, and that they want to see rectified is to have more clarity and transparency for communities as to the number and names of the people who are nominating through that council election process. As I said, this is especially pertinent within regional communities, and we saw this writ large in the last council term.

It was the first council election process where the names and the number of nominations were not actually published throughout the process. We had a number of councils—predominantly regional councils—who did not receive the requisite number of nominations to fill the positions on their elected member body, and thus they were required to have supplementary elections. I was watching this with interest because, with the changes made under the last Liberal government, this was one aspect where the minister at the time and I (I was LGA president at the time) certainly had a disagreement about what the best outcome for the community might be.

All the way through, with my experience in local government and community leadership, especially within regional areas, I have supported the capacity for there to be not just the number but also the name of the nominations that are coming into a council election. We can potentially have some perverse outcomes when you have a council area—and there are some small council areas out there in regional South Australia, in particular—with only a thousand or a couple of thousand electors. That obviously limits the pool of the people who might consider putting up their hand for local government.

If we do not know how many nominations there have been we get the potential for the outcome we saw in a number of regional council areas, where there were not enough nominations to fill the positions. If there were publication of the names and number of nominations 24 hours out from when nominations close in a regional seat, for instance, I could look at it and think, 'Gee whiz, we're too short,' and I would go and get in the ear of someone I knew was a passionate community leader in my area and say, 'Look, we're short for counsellors; you should consider taking up this important role.'

This is what local government is within regional communities in particular: it is community leadership in its most magnified form. It is people who get paid very little to be in the role of an elected member, but the responsibility for their community, not just now but into the future, is really important. Without that capacity to understand and know how many nominations there have been, or the names of those people who nominated, we had those perverse outcomes that ended up costing communities.

The amendment that has been put forward to the legislation within this Statutes Amendment (Local Government Elections Review) Bill sets up the framework for the number of nominations to be published. It is my position—and I will be putting forward amendments either in this place or in the other—to not just have the number but also have the names of those nominees published at an opportune time. In regional communities especially it is not just the numbers but also the names that really matter, because we need to make sure the right people are putting their names forward.

If a community reflects on the names that are published and reflects that perhaps there might need to be others who put their name forward, then they can make that decision with clarity. Having just the numbers could still risk having a community disengaged with that nomination process. That is certainly an amendment that I am going to be putting forward and would encourage the government to consider supporting because, as I have said, I have heard from regional communities in particular right around our state about not just the number but also the name of the nominee, as per what the process was only two local government elections ago.

The minister has indicated that there is consideration within this to also allow for pre-poll voting at supplementary elections, a trial per se through to 2030. This is another one that I have questions about, not just in the delivery of it but the necessity of it as well, which I will be putting to the minister, especially around the timing of those supplementary elections and, when nominations are received, whether there is actually the timeframe within that process to have a pre-poll, which adds an extra layer on top of that election process.

We are not necessarily seeing any financial advantage because, in my reading of this legislation, there would still need to be the mail out to each and every individual, yet we know in this place that the cost of that postage is only going up. If there was a saving I could see the justification, but the way I looked at it, this is not going to provide for any of that administrative saving.

An aspect that caught my attention within what the minister is putting forward within this bill is specifying the reimbursement amount available to members for printed communication with constituents. I understand the motivation behind it, but I also think that this sort of decision cannot be made as a stand alone. Once again, it is not something that I have heard in the feedback from local government that it is something that is especially pertinent and front of mind, so I will be interested in asking questions as to where the motivation for this aspect in particular has come from.

If we were going to be looking at the reimbursement amounts available to members across the board for all the different cost bases, I would understand that, but singling out this aspect in particular, the reimbursement amounts available to members for printed communications with constituents as a stand alone, I have certainly got uncertainties and questions around that aspect.

There is an aspect within this piece of legislation to enable councils a level of flexibility to operate during a period of declared emergency. There have been situations over the last number of years where this had to be brought in by the minister of the time to allow for councils to be making decisions. Obviously, during a public health emergency like COVID-19, that was very front and centre and this is where the minister at the time made a declaration to allow for the requirements around council bodies meeting, for instance, to have some flexibility within that to allow them to not be as stringent with the timeframes or the means of meeting.

For instance, we all suddenly got used to meeting online with each other, where previously that was something that was more of a novelty than a necessity. We on this side support this aspect in particular. I do have some questions and want to get an indication from the minister as to what their expectation is of how this would be used. My understanding, from reading it on face value, is that one aspect it does open up is the potential for an overzealous minister in the future to use these powers over and above what the expectation of the minister of today might be envisioning that this aspect allows for. This is an area that I will be certainly adding a few questions into the process with.

Within this legislation there are additional parameters that are set out around the conduct and the direction of scrutineers through the election process. Once again, sadly, it is making legislation to suit the lowest common denominator, because the vast majority of scrutineers through the process will be acting in a respectful and thoughtful way. This does put in a few parameters around the expectation of the conduct and the direction of scrutineers through the local government elections process. Once again, this is one that I indicate we are going to support. There will be a few questions for clarification through the committee stage, which I will be putting forward.

This legislation also adds in the capacity for there to be additional parameters around the publication of misleading election materials and specifically around where there is direction within election materials to electors on how to mark their paper. This is one that I think is common sense. We do not want to have election material provided by a candidate to an elector that actually instructs them to incorrectly mark their voting papers.

It is important that, although you can perhaps take direction from correspondence from a candidate, the actual instructions on the process of marking and delivering your ballot paper are purely on the advice of the Electoral Commissioner in the materials that they provide to electors. I certainly appreciate the reasons behind that and support that change. There are some minor voter roll changes and also some minor adjustments of the timeframes around the vote count commencement. I understand these are based on recommendations coming from the Electoral Commissioner to give them some scope to be able to go through that local government election count effectively and do it in a conscientious way.

There are more specifications for financial disclosures that are built into this legislation, simplifying the process as well as the requirements around the large gift returns. It is fair to say that the obligations within the existing legislation probably do not reflect the reality of what is actually received by candidates right across the board, the hundreds of candidates that put their hands up for a local government election. To simplify that process and to lessen the requirement for reporting I think is a sensible amendment that will be provided within this legislation.

The reality of how many candidates actually receive a large gift—I ran in a few local government elections; I would have loved to have received some large gifts, but I did not. I think there would not be too many that actually do. I think it was reflected within the reporting around the last election that the obligation for the reporting probably outweighed the reality of what is actually delivered when it comes to local government elections. We absolutely support that aspect around the financial disclosures and the large gifts.

One other aspect that I want to highlight is the heavy-handedness, really, that was built into the last piece of legislation, which we saw once again writ large with the failed process around the reporting mechanisms in the last council election. This legislation now puts in place that candidates or elected members, once elected, who do not comply with disclosure requirements, whether that is in the electoral returns or the gift returns or the like, are suspended rather than removed from office.

If there is a procedural oversight, which we saw dozens of elected members and candidates caught up in last time around, then those elected members are actually suspended for the period of time until they rectify that mistake rather than be suspended and need a decision of this place to try to reapply their positions en masse. It is sensible legislation, and I would certainly congratulate the minister and the department on listening to what the feedback was, especially from our local government.

I see that within this legislation there is also the capacity to reflect the state election legislation around corflutes in local government elections. Once again, I think this is something which is certainly not as prominent in local government elections as it was in state elections. I do not think I saw a corflute in regional South Australia with the local government elections, but there are some zealous candidates at the metro level who used to put up corflutes for consideration in local government elections, but no more. That will reflect the state election campaign requirements.

There are some changes around the access to the voters roll and the declaration of nominations dates. There are some slight adjustments that we support. There is the aspect within the legislation about the capacity for councils to replace an elected member, who, for whatever reason, decides to give up their position and cause a vacancy. The bill confirms that a vacancy created within 12 months of the previous election will be filled by a re-count back.

This is one which, it is fair to say, on this side we are still considering our position on, and I will be leaning into some questions to the minister on different aspects because I think there are both positives and negatives to this process. There is some clean-up around the appointments of deputy returning officers and, once again, some clean-up around the specified dates as to when elections will be formally concluded.

One other aspect—which I note is not within the legislation but the minister mooted that it might be included within the regulation—is a requirement for candidates at a local government election to proactively be required to disclose any adverse conduct findings by the Ombudsman or the Behavioural Standards Panel. I hope that the minister will be able to unpack this a little bit for me, because I think there are some complicating factors within that which could have potential perverse outcomes for actual candidates when we are going through the local government election process.

Like I said, this is a bill that has been long awaited. I was hoping there would be some aspects within this legislation over and above what is actually in it because I recognise the consultation process that former Minister Brock instigated—and it is fair to say he threw some big ideas out there—for there to be feedback from the community and from local government to really challenge councils to look at what their community's expectations of them are.

Indeed, I think it is really important that in this place we are making decisions about councils and local government areas and their communities that are looking to the future of what the requirements are going to be, questioning different aspects and looking at the structures to ensure that they appropriately reflect the expectations of their community.

Although a separate tier of government, local government in South Australia is formed by legislation of this place, so it is the responsibility of the minister and the parliament as a whole to ensure that those frameworks, those structures, that are put forward in legislation for local government appropriately reflect the ongoing expectation of community.

Whether that is providing some extra containment for local governments that might be overly zealous with what they think they can try to achieve, or whether that is removing some of those restrictions or regulations which as the shadow minister I hear (and I am sure the minister does as well) councils get frustrated with: the obligations that are put on them and the additional aspects, whether it is cost shifting or regulation shifting from state government onto local government, which I continue to hear over and over from councillors as I travel around this state.

I indicate that there are several aspects within this legislation where I think there can be changes to fine-tune what I recognise as the expectations of the community, and the government in good faith can at least consider the amendments that were put forward either here or in the other place in between the houses to make sure that there is appropriate reflection of what local government and their communities', in particular, expectations are.

There are some aspects that we do not support, the majority we do, and there are some aspects that we will be certainly looking to try to amend when we are looking at the process. With that, I conclude my remarks and look forward to the committee stage of the bill.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK (Stuart) (17:24): I would like to contribute a little bit to this bill. I thank the minister for bringing in this bill. As the shadow minister, the member for Flinders, has indicated, this has been a long overdue process. I had the privilege of being the Minister for Local Government before having to step down, and I am very passionate about local councils in particular. The last council elections were a dog's breakfast, to be quite frank. It was an embarrassment to me, specifically as a person who has been involved with local councils for over 20 years and then the minister twice, to see the results of the last one. As the member for Flinders has indicated, it was quite awkward when there were not enough council nominations and things like that.

I asked the Office of Local Government to go out and do a public consultation. The new Minister for Local Government has now received all that and has brought this bill back for the consideration of the house. During this consultation period, I understand 92 submissions were received directly, including submissions from 32 of South Australia's 68 councils and a sector-wide submission from the Local Government Association. For those outside who may not know, the Local Government Association is the key body for all councils across South Australia, so the submission was very good. A further 406 surveys were completed on the government website, which contained 54,000 comments.

The Local Government Association was also consulted on this through that process in my time as minister, and it has continued under the new minister. Certainly, the Local Government Association has lots of discussions on the reforms. The LGA, as I said earlier, was principally supportive of the proposals during my time. As the minister has indicated in the second reading speech, and also the shadow minister, I think that is very important.

The best idea of the consultation after the last council elections was in regard to the issue of people who were not Australian citizens supposedly having their voting papers—because it was a postal vote—taken by somebody else and filled out. This bill makes it quite clear that you have to be an Australian citizen and have to be on the House of Assembly electoral roll. Therefore, as was indicated earlier, the people who are voting at council elections are Australians, they are on the House of Assembly electoral roll, and that is the way it should be. I congratulate the minister on actually taking that on board and also the public at the consultation for bringing that in.

As I understand it, an amendment has been proposed in order to increase the integrity of local government elections following feedback from the survey. The proposed amendments are also intended to provide greater assurance to our community that only those entitled to vote are the ones who are going to vote.

Recent findings of the Court of Disputed Returns, as the shadow minister has indicated, were prolonged. It was quite embarrassing that some people actually had to be removed from their positions as elected members, but also during the last election there were many candidates, including some mayors, who actually did not fulfil the requirements required on the returns. During that period of time, we had to put through special legislation to allow those people, instead of having another supplementary election. Another supplementary election is a cost factor to the smaller councils, particularly regional councils—up to $30,000—so we were able to keep those people involved in the system.

I should also say that councils themselves need to exercise their property franchise entitlements. This means that if somebody is on the House of Assembly electoral roll, their businesses can nominate somebody, so the councils need to do that.

A significant reform of the new system is the management of campaign donation returns. This was also part of the discussions held with the Electoral Commissioner over a period of time. I think it is very important that the general public, when they have the opportunity to elect somebody, should be aware of donations and things like that. As the member for Flinders indicated, when he was mayor he would have welcomed some donations. Even when I was on the council and ran for mayor twice, we did not get donations in regional areas; however, that safeguards that opportunity.

The new system is both significantly more simple for candidates to manage and places greater emphasis on the disclosure of gifts and donations. As I said, I think the community needs to understand that someone is giving a donation, in case there is a conflict of interest, and things like that. The new opportunity is that the number of candidates per council area, whether it is the wards or mayoral, has to be promoted there. I understand from this bill that it requires councils to put that number up. As the shadow minister has indicated, I would like to also see the names put up as part of that, but I think that is something we can discuss during the committee process.

The bill also requires councils to hold a public meeting to enable candidates to speak to voters, to make certain that the voters themselves have the opportunity. I think that is great. As elected members in this house, we have the opportunity to talk at public meetings. I think it is very wise for the communities to hear from the candidates, to understand and ask questions of those candidates, to ensure that everybody is aware of what they are doing. If a council elects not to do it, then the council, the principal member, being the mayor, has to give a reason for it, and the reason why they are not going to hold a public meeting has to be very genuine. Again, we will watch this as we go through the process.

Another thing proposed is that voters should be aware of whether somebody standing for council has previously breached behavioural standards. Too often, people who have run for election in councils have not made known to the public some of their past history and, when they get in, that bad behaviour could come into play in the new council. Even when I was a councillor, when I had the privilege of being the Minister for Local Government, and now, one of the things I became very upset with and embarrassed by was the behaviour of certain councillors. These people, and the communities in particular, are there for the betterment of their community, and they should respect that and behave in a very professional manner.

The bill also requires the Electoral Commission to publish numbers of nominations on their website. It also requires councils to make a small allowance available to council members for reimbursement for publication of material associated with community engagement activities. Whilst I agree with that, I think we need to be able to put in some guidelines and also have a limit on that. Enabling a trial of pre-poll locations for voters to drop in and vote for a supplementary election held between 2026 and 2030 will establish whether the benefits of an additional voting method are broadly adopted. I think that is a good idea.

The bill will introduce standards for conduct for scrutineers and offences for those sorts of people. In my time as a councillor, as the mayor, I never used scrutineers, as I trusted the Electoral Commission people or council staff to be honest, transparent and true to what was being presented to them. However, at the same time, we have to have some guidelines and assurances that the scrutineers act in a proper manner and treat the Electoral Commission people, or whoever it may be counting the votes, in an honest way.

I also understand the regulation of election advertising posters and corflutes in local government elections now provides for consistency with state and federal elections. If you do not have your name out there in your community, then in actual fact you should not be running for that position. You are there to represent your community. One of the things I find with my volunteers, as a member of parliament, is that they hate putting up corflutes and having to take them down, plus it is an eyesore. I think that is a good move, but we will see how that turns out.

I also understand the legislation should support the unique characteristics of local elections, including the property franchise and the postal voting system, but should also provide local elections with the same level of assurances as state elections. As the shadow minister has indicated, in South Australia the state government is responsible for the behaviour of the councils, which I agree with.

The bill also includes a number of measures to improve the efficient delivery of local government elections and improve the integrity of council elections which will be of benefit to the community. We all have to remember, irrespective of whether you are a state politician, a minister, a federal minister, a councillor, or a mayor, you are there for the community that you represent. We are here to do the best we can for our state and our communities in this state parliament.

Councillors are there to understand and do the best they can for their community. They are community people. They are there basically as volunteers. I know there are a lot of mayors out there and I hear people say that mayors should not get involved with certain discussions. But local government in general is changing very, very quickly and that is good.

The real challenge, in the context of council elections, is the ability for voters to understand who is running for council. This goes back to what I said a minute ago. The Electoral Commission will put up the numbers for each council, but I think it is very important for every community—specifically regional people—to understand who is running for council. If there is nobody running there may not be a vacancy there and, as the shadow minister has indicated, you could then do a bit of lobbying and talk to somebody and say, 'By the way—' and then outline the situation, because the last thing we want is to have a supplementary election in a council area, especially in the regional areas.

I will leave it there, other than to say again that I believe that this bill is well and truly overdue. However, it has now gone through the right process and it has gone through the public consultation. The general public themselves had the opportunity to make comment on the survey, and I thank sincerely everybody who contributed to that survey. I thank sincerely all the councils that may have made submissions to that survey. I again pay tribute to the minister for bringing it back here and I am looking forward to a speedy passage here so that we can get this out of the way. The council elections are next year in 2026. When we do come back, or whoever may come back into the new parliament, there will be only a short period of time remaining. If this bill does not go through in its entirety it will make it a lot more difficult for the 2026 council elections. So I commend the bill to the house.

Ms THOMPSON (Davenport) (17:37): I, too, am rising to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Local Government Elections Review) Bill. Like others in the chamber today, as someone who has served at both local and state levels of government, including as a mayor at the City of Onkaparinga and, along with the member for Flinders, on the board of the Local Government Association, I understand firsthand how important it is that our council elections are fair and trusted by the communities that local councillors represent.

Local government is the level of government that is closest to the people. It is where residents see their rates at work. So every morning when people drive out of their driveways they drive onto a road that is looked after by the council and past the parks and playgrounds that are maintained by the council, and their kids and families are using libraries that are maintained and funded by the council. Most of what you see in our suburbs where we live is looked after by our councils, so it is only right that the process of electing those who lead and manage these councils be above reproach.

This bill is not a small piece of housekeeping. It is the culmination of significant and meaningful consultation with councils and with South Australians right across our state. At the request of the former Minister for Local Government, Geoff Brock, the Office of Local Government undertook statewide consultation to explore how we could strengthen the integrity of local government decisions.

The consultation received 92 direct submissions, including from 32 of South Australia's 68 councils, two of those being the largest councils in my electorate of Davenport, namely the City of Onkaparinga and the City of Marion. There was a sector-wide submission from the Local Government Association and there were 406 completed surveys on the YourSAy page, generating an extraordinary 54,000 individual comments. That level of engagement alone tells us something important, and that is that South Australians care deeply about how their local councils are elected and governed.

The Local Government Association have said they are principally supportive of reforms that improve the transparency, integrity and efficiency of elections, and that is precisely what this bill delivers. The most significant reform in this bill is the requirement that all voters in local government elections be enrolled to vote in state and federal elections too. This change brings local elections into line with state and federal elections by ensuring that only Australian citizens are entitled to vote, while still preserving the property franchise for those who own or occupy property in a council area.

Why is this important? Because it strengthens the integrity of our elections and ensures that every ballot issued is legitimate. Some will remember that this reform responds directly to serious concerns that were raised after the 2022 periodic elections where irregularities were identified. The Court of Disputed Returns' findings in relation to the City of Adelaide Central Ward revealed the unlawful enrolment and use of ballots by non-citizen residents. These illegal practices led to the removal of four elected members and, more damagingly, eroded public confidence in the fairness of our council elections. The integrity of our electoral system cannot be taken for granted, and this bill restores that confidence.

Under the new arrangements, councils will be responsible for confirming that any nominated property franchise voter is an Australian citizen and enrolled at a valid address, reducing the burden on returning officers to verify citizenship after ballots are cast. In short, this is about preventing misuse before it happens, not cleaning up messes after the fact while leaving people to live in limbo.

Integrity does not stop at who votes. It extends to how voters are informed about who they are voting for. One of the biggest frustrations that voters express, particularly at local government elections, is the lack of information about candidates. In 2022, more than 1,250 candidates contested 184 positions across South Australia. For many voters, the only information available was the 150-word profile in their ballot pack.

Mr Speaker, you would remember my 150 words from when I was running for the City of Onkaparinga. I had many a back-and-forth with the Electoral Commission until they finally accepted those 150 words. There were many rules. I was not allowed to criticise the current council in any way, shape or form, and many would remember that the City of Onkaparinga was highly criticised at the time for its lack of transparency and integrity.

Thanks to the member for Mawson for bringing attention to that and putting a little bit of pressure on the Electoral Commission to finally accept the 150 words that allowed me to explain how I was going to represent 180,000 members of the City of Onkaparinga. It is really difficult for those candidates to promote who they are and how they are best going to represent people. I can certainly say from personal experience how difficult that is and why it is so important that this bill is tackling that issue head-on.

Firstly, councils will now be required to hold public candidate meetings, which creates direct opportunities for voters to meet and hear from candidates and for candidates to be questioned by the public they will soon be representing. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the Onkaparinga Northern Community Forum, who hold these candidate sessions in my electorate of Davenport at the Aberfoyle Community Centre.

Even prior to this bill being introduced, they have always done that. For every local, state and federal election, they make sure all the candidates are brought in and they promote that opportunity to the community to come and hear firsthand from the people wanting to represent them. This reform responds directly to community feedback. We had 84 per cent of YourSAy respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing that more should be done to give candidates a platform to share their views and experience.

Secondly, it introduces a simpler and more transparent system for campaign donation disclosure. Candidates will be required to report on their donations throughout the campaign rather than afterwards, which actually gives voters more of an opportunity to understand who is backing, and financially backing, those candidates.

Importantly, the government also intends to make regulations requiring candidates to disclose if they have been the subject of adverse findings from integrity bodies, including the Behavioural Standards Panel, the Ombudsman or the ICAC. Any of us who have spent time in the local government space will know that a huge amount of time is sucked up by behavioural issues. So I think it is really important that, as we also heard from the former Minister for Local Government, our communities should know if they are electing someone who is going to go in and spend ratepayers' time and money on silly behavioural disputes. There are huge amounts of legal fees as well for those individual councils.

As someone who has led a large council, I can tell you that trust in our institutions starts with accountability from those who seek to lead them. Voters deserve to know if a candidate has previously breached those integrity or behavioural standards. These measures will give voters a clearer picture of who they are voting for, what they stand for, how they conduct themselves and who supports them. Beyond those key reforms, the bill also introduces a range of practical measures to modernise and improve the efficiency of local government elections. These include:

publishing nominations as they are received, helping to reduce uncontested elections or last-minute withdrawals—and I can tell you there have been multiple elections where I have witnessed potential candidates hanging around in the lobbies of council chambers waiting for those last few seconds to put up their application form so that they can put it in the least contested seat and have the best chance of winning an uncontested election;

allowing modest reimbursements for council members to engage more effectively with their communities through communication and outreach—councillors are not paid a lot of money to do their job, so I think this is really important and will be really helpful for them to be better at representing their communities;

trialling pre-poll voting for supplementary elections between 2026 and 2030, recognising that not all voters prefer or are able to use postal voting—I wish I was standing here celebrating that we were moving towards online voting but unfortunately we are not ready to do that just quite yet, but one day;

introducing clear standards of conduct for scrutineers and new penalties for anyone obstructing election duties or misleading voters—it sounds like there might be some further questions during committee on that particular topic, but there certainly were examples at the last election for why this is necessary. I can only speak to the City of Onkaparinga standards, but things certainly went down at the City of Onkaparinga chambers by the scrutineers at the last election. SAPOL was called on multiple occasions, which is pretty disappointing, so I really hope that these standards mean that we see a bit of a higher standard from those scrutineers; and

updating corflute regulations to bring consistency with state and federal election rules, which is just a no-brainer.

Additionally, the government intends to amend regulations to expand telephone voting access to all people with a disability, which is fantastic. This is an important and overdue step to make local democracy more inclusive.

Each of these measures might seem small in isolation, but together they add up to a system that is fairer and more consistent. The relationship between councils and the state government is one of partnership and mutual accountability most of the time. The state has a clear responsibility to ensure that council elections are conducted with the same integrity and assurance that South Australians expect at the state and federal level.

I am proud to support this bill, not only as a legislator but as someone who has served within the local government system and seen firsthand both its strengths and its vulnerabilities. Our councils make decisions that shape the daily lives of every South Australian. The least we can do is ensure that the process by which we choose their leaders is trusted. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS (Cheltenham—Minister for Trade and Investment, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (17:49): I thank members for their contribution and I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1 passed.

Clause 2.

Mr TELFER: I look forward to a vigorous committee stage, maybe not all tonight but potentially tomorrow, depending on the will of the house.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Odenwalder): Almost certainly not tonight.

Mr TELFER: I am happy to, because I think it is really important that we flesh out a number of different aspects of this bill. Clause 2 is around the commencement of the act. What recommendations have the Electoral Commissioner and the LGA provided to the minister on the commencement of the bill?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I thank the member for his question and I look forward to the committee stage. It is very much in his hands to get as much of this on the record as we possibly can, hopefully not going too far into the night. We have had no representations from ECSA or the LGA about the commencement date. However, I can advise the member that the expectation is that all clauses will come into effect on 1 January 2026.

Mr TELFER: Minister, are you confident that allows enough time for the required adjustments to the process to be fully understood by the sector and enacted not just by the Electoral Commissioner but by local government as a whole? It is not a simple process to hold probably 66 different elections, by that time, with the duplication of mayoral and elected member elections. Are you confident there is going to be enough time to put these changes into play?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am confident. Not only is it our endeavour but such is the will of the parliament for this to be contemplated and passed this year. I do not know, we may be coming back next year. We may have a busy sitting schedule in January and February. Assuming that we will not, yes, I do, and the expectation for us and the nature of the engagement we have had with the sector has been that this will be enough time for the periodic election to be fully encompassed with the reforms. Keep in mind that the rolls close at the end of July which gives a full seven months, so we think that is a very reasonable time. It could be an arbitrary date at any time but the 1 January period would be something that we think is well and truly sufficient.

Mr TELFER: Is that the advice you received from the Electoral Commissioner about it? Is he comfortable that there is going to be enough time to be able to get these aspects in particular in place? There are some nuanced aspects. We talked about telephone voting and the like, so it is not necessarily a simple process. There are some aspects that will take a little bit of framework to try to develop.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: We have had no concerns at all raised by the Electoral Commissioner. I believe I did this in my second reading speech but certainly for the record, my thanks to the Electoral Commission staff for the way that they have engaged in this process, particularly by way of taking a collaborative approach to the design, some of the clauses and, as the member has rightfully asked, the capacity for the Electoral Commissioner to effect these changes in a manner which is necessary for them to execute their responsibilities and duties.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

Mr TELFER: This makes amendments to the Local Government (Elections) Act 1999 preliminary clauses, which are basically the definitions within the legislation. Clause 3 changes the definition of a 'designated person'. It takes out some aspects of commentary around the case of a body corporate and instead speaks purely about 'in respect of a body corporate or group entitled to be enrolled on the voters roll for an area or ward, means a natural person, of or above the age of majority', and then puts in this aspect about a state elector.

Does this definition adjustment mean that in the case of a body corporate, someone entitled to be enrolled cannot be an Australian citizen from interstate, but has to an Australian citizen from South Australia?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Broadly, I will use this opportunity to articulate both clause 3(2), which is the substantive amendment, and clause 3(1), which is the consequential amendment that changes the definition. It is clear, and the member has picked this up in his second reading contribution, that it is the view of the government and, frankly, the reasonable expectation of the community at large, that some of highest order of obligations upon government and policymakers across every level of government is to ensure fair elections, free elections, and perhaps most importantly elections that can continue to enjoy the confidence of the community.

It is also important—and I can put this on the record—that the deliberations, to put it that way, the government has formed around 'citizenship tests' is one we did not arrive at lightly. I say that in the context of being the son of a migrant, and not just a migrant but the son of a refugee, who, more than any person I have ever known, valued and prioritised the freedom he sought and found here in South Australia.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.