Bills

Statutes Amendment (Local Government Elections Review) Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Mr ODENWALDER: Mr Chair, I draw your attention to the state of the committee.

A quorum having been formed:

Clause 24 passed.

Clause 25.

Mr TELFER: This clause in particular sets up the obligation, unless opted out, for councils to:

…during the period commencing after the close of nominations and before polling day for a general election, hold at least 1 meeting involving any candidates who wish to participate and members of the public…

This is basically obligating a council to hold one of these meetings and, in doing so, sets up a framework for probably what some councils have done informally—but certainly not all of the 68 councils around the state. There are a few aspects of this which I am cautious about—and I have reflected on this in my second reading contribution—knowing the nuances of different communities and different councils, obligating councils to hold public meetings.

Obviously, given the inherently controversial nature of election debates, I worry and ask you: is it not likely that there will be disagreements about the debate format, speaking time (time allowed for each candidate to speak or answer questions) and the powers of the presiding officer, whoever that might be? Is it not inevitable, if they cannot get a third-party facilitator—and I will touch on that shortly—especially in regional councils, that it will be the council's CEO or staff who have to facilitate the legislated meeting? Then there is that natural controversy around the arrangement and the obligation for those arrangements to fall on the CEO or delegated staff member of a council.

Is there a risk that the electorate's confidence in the process would be undermined with that aspect of council staff being involved? I spoke about it in my second reading speech, knowing that candidates for a local government election who are putting their hand up to be elected members in the end are going to be the employers of a CEO, who will be responsible either themselves or delegate that power to someone within their council. I worry that it is putting that extra responsibility and obligation when it is not necessary, when those councils that already have a willingness to hold a public meeting and have the capacity to be able to do so if they wish, that this is putting an obligation onto a council to have to hold a public meeting, right across the state.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I do not share the member's sense of inevitability of a problem. I think that is probably underselling regional communities and is quite an unfortunate downpayment on lack of faith in regional communities to resolve problems. I do not believe there is a sense of undermining. In fact, even the preface to the question was around these things being inevitably problematic, and I do not agree. I do not agree with any of that. We seem to be able to do it here, so I am not sure why we would try to overlay a different standard of civility when it comes to local government. There is a capacity here for these forums to be held in different capacities, different fora and online, which this drafting has picked up. There can be a need or a nuance around the way that local councils successfully roll these out in different areas, as is already done, as the minister said.

In the unfortunate case, in my view, that the councils determined for there not to be a reason to proceed with these, there would be an articulation by that council to their community why it should not occur. But if the opposition to this would be framed in a view—and I say this respectfully, I do not think the member is coming at it from this angle. If the opposition to this more broadly would be that we cannot get these things right because there is inevitably going to be an issue, that is a really unfortunate state of affairs and I think that we can do better. Certainly, the community expects better.

This was consulted in a previous participations review, and 84 per cent of participants and contributors to that survey indicated that efforts should be made to provide platforms such as online meetings to meet their candidates. So I think the community is up for it. I have probably shared this with the member, I think most if not all candidates are up for it. I just do not think we should be discounting innovative ways to engage with the community because of, as the member put it, some sense of local nuance and parlance around the way that people will civilly interact with each other.

Mr TELFER: That survey which the minister referenced, is that the most recent survey, the consultation process around the most recent local government election? If not, can you furnish me with that result?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: It is. There are no iterations. There is only one.

Mr TELFER: I get the big picture perspective the minister is relying on and I look at the nuance of obligating. Sure, within a state electorate, these sorts of things can be put on and facilitated, often by a third party, but there are not always interested third parties in a local government election with a thousand electors to put on a public meeting. Indeed, in the end it is going to be a requirement, most likely, that is going to have to be picked up by council resources if they are obligated to do so.

Thinking about the public meeting section of the Summary Offences Act, section 18A, if the person being disorderly or abusive at a public meeting is a candidate for the election and that candidate has not yet had their formal opportunity to speak, is the person presiding over the public meeting empowered to have that candidate removed? What are we going to be using for the basis of the structure of the public meeting, as envisioned by this section?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: It will be, as it is the case in much of the engagement in this manner in which the council is currently engaged, for them to determine this themselves. As I mentioned before, the new section 91B (2) provides that, explicitly:

(2) A meeting held by a council under this section may be held remotely using audio visual technology or any other means of communication determined appropriate by the council—

and I say this specifically and particularly in respect of some of the member's questions—

(and nothing in this section is to be taken to require candidates and members of the public to be physically present at the meeting).

Within that constraint but also the latitude in which these meetings under this section could proceed, it is a matter for councils to resolve the intricacies and, a word the member has used a bit today, the nuances. That is appropriate. I do not think that it is before this chamber necessarily to be running page upon page of telling councils how to suck eggs.

But I come to the final clause in the proposed new section. That is that councils do have the capacity, in a well thought through, articulated position, as the member put, in the event that a council either simply does not have capacity, or for a series of well thought through reasons that are then articulated in the caretaker policy for these meeting not to occur. While it would be before the chamber to be mandating without any exceptions, it is my view that with a clause like this we should provide, albeit one that I would hope to be exercised in a rare occurrence, a capacity for a council to determine on its accord, with articulation, why this should not occur.

The ACTING CHAIR (Ms Stinson): Member, if you ask a question on this clause, it will be your fourth question. Do you have another one on this clause?

Mr TELFER: This will be my third.

The ACTING CHAIR (Ms Stinson): No, I have been counting very carefully. The minister seems in a tolerant mood, though, and your second question was quite brief. I am going to let you go one more.

Mr TELFER: I must be miscounting. Thank you, Acting Chair, I appreciate it. Minister, you reference the caretaker policy, which will provide a framework for the councils to opt out. Do you envision that that caretaker policy will be necessary to prescribe the arrangements for a public meeting—as you speak about, the potential for remotely using audiovisual, or the structure of who the presiding member over the meeting is going to be, if they are going to prescribe that a third party will be involved in it?

Will the caretaker policy have to provide that level of prescription? If so, is there a risk that the arrangements which are being put in place via, as you spoke about, an existing council body may have an impact on an incoming group of candidates who may be a completely different group of individuals to the existing council body? If the necessity is there for there to be a decision around a public meeting and you are leaving that responsibility to the previous council term, does that undermine the nature of accountability of putting in place a legislated obligation for a public meeting for candidates at a local government election?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised the caretaker policy is a vehicle, to the member's question, that could be used to articulate the administrative arrangements around the holding and running of a public meeting, but it need not only be the caretaker policy: it could be an ordinary policy of the council which would prescribe that.

Clause passed.

Clauses 26 and 27 passed.

Clause 28.

Mr TELFER: Minister, can I first indicate that this section sets out the frameworks for the suspension of a member for failure to submit certain returns. I think this is a sensible change and one I certainly support as I have spoken about in my second reading contribution. Former Minister Brock described it as 'a dog's breakfast' after the last council term when we had dozens of elected members fail to submit certain returns and thus automatically lost their positions. This was obviously the subject at the time of rectifying legislation that was necessary for us to pass to try to fix up that 'dog's breakfast', as described by the former minister.

Pursuant to the new section 55B(4), a suspended member of council can be returned to council if the Electoral Commission is satisfied that the member is compliant with part 14 of the Local Government Elections Act. However, part of section 14 relates to lodging returns on time, which the suspended member breached. That being the case, how will a candidate be able to convince the commissioner that they are compliant with all provisions of section 14?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised that the process prescribed in subsection (4) would provide that in the event of a failure to furnish, the individual would then be required to satisfy the requirements to resubmit the completed form to the commissioner, and then the commissioner would avail themselves at the time of section 14, which is the content and the form of the returns.

Mr TELFER: Indeed, and I appreciate the constructive nature in which the chamber as a whole is going about this very important legislative process. Minister, I refer to the prescribed period that is referenced in new section 55B(5). That subsection provides:

(5) If a member of a council is suspended under subsection (1) for a continuous period of more than the prescribed period, the council must apply to SACAT for an order disqualifying the member of the council from the office of member under this Act.

Can the minister provide an indication on what is envisaged to be the proposed prescribed period? That is, how long will the council and the community need to wait before they can fill the suspended position on their council with another person? If someone decides that they are not going to go through the process to rectify their mistake, how long do you envision the prescribed period being before council is obligated to apply to SACAT for an order disqualifying the member of the council from the office of member under the act?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised 12 months.

Mr TELFER: For clarification, when there is a member of a council who does not appropriately conform to the requirements of the reporting under this legislation, there will be a period of 12 months when the council will have a suspended member until the council is then required to apply to SACAT for an order disqualifying? Twelve months is a quarter of the council term, plus the process of whatever SACAT is envisioning. For that period of time, they will basically be a member down on the council if they are refusing to comply with the reporting obligations under the act.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Again, I respond in the frame that if a member were to effectively go on strike and refuse to comply with their statutory obligations, then there are a series of remedies that may be available to the council. In specific reference to the length of time available utilising this section, yes, it is 12 months.

Clause passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.