Contents
-
Commencement
-
Parliamentary Committees
-
-
Motions
-
-
Bills
-
-
Motions
-
-
Bills
-
-
Parliamentary Procedure
-
Question Time
-
-
Grievance Debate
-
-
Parliamentary Procedure
-
Grievance Debate
-
-
Parliamentary Procedure
-
-
Bills
-
-
Parliamentary Procedure
-
Motions
-
-
Auditor-General's Report
-
-
Bills
-
Bills
Statutes Amendment (Local Government Elections Review) Bill
Committee Stage
In committee.
(Continued from 15 October 2025.)
Clause 3.
The CHAIR: Member for Flinders, I understand we were on clause 3.
Mr TELFER: Yes, sir, and we were a minute into an answer to my first question when the minister was rudely interrupted. The question was about the aspect in particular of the 'state elector' and the question around the definition—which clause 3 is changing within the Local Government (Elections) Act—of a qualified elector and that designated person taking out the aspects around the body corporate definition of application of their right to vote and instead replacing it with a state elector. Could you continue your answer which you were eloquently putting?
The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Specifically to the member's question regarding the framing of this clause, it is to give effect to the new policy setting the government will be taking through, and that is that, to exercise a vote in a South Australian election, be it a state election or a local government election, you must be eligible to vote on the House of Assembly roll. That is the mechanism by which the government worked very closely with parliamentary counsel to frame. The most important part of ensuring that this section can work is to ensure it does not create an additional onus or more administration or red-tape burden for the councils in respect of managing their role.
One single point for truth in roll, being the House of Assembly, was the frame which parliamentary counsel and the government were able to execute for this policy setting. If I take it back to the principal approach to this, that is that the most important right and obligation conferred upon a citizen of our country is to be able to participate in an election, that those elections must be free, fair, and command and enjoy public confidence.
Thirdly, which is specifically to the member's question regarding property franchise, it is not the intention nor is there any change in this bill that would remove property franchise which we think is a really important part of the local government election framework. We do not think or believe, and frankly nor does the public, that a property franchise vote should be exercised by anybody other than an Australian citizen, and that is what this clause seeks to effect.
Mr TELFER: I appreciate some clarification. You speak about a citizen of our country's right to vote and fair elections. In a scenario—and this is very much a live one, especially within border communities—where you have a landowner who owns a significant portion of land or a business or a building in South Australia but lives in Victoria, New South Wales or elsewhere interstate, they have had the right to be able to be active in their local government elections and vote for the people who they see as best representing what they believe is the best future for their local government area.
My reading of this change in the legislation is that if you are not a South Australian citizen then you are not eligible to vote in local government elections. Under the current arrangements, Australian citizens from interstate have been able to vote if they qualify by owning property within a council area. Can you clarify for me that my understanding of what this change will mean is that interstate citizens who own property or business within South Australia will not be able to vote in a South Australian local government election?
The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I can confirm that is correct. The eligibility to vote in a local government election will be streamlined to ensure that you must be eligible to vote in a House of Assembly election. That is, as the member has rightfully put, that you must be a resident with certain criteria of South Australia. The reason that a resident of Victoria, Tasmania or Far North Queensland will not, under these changes, be able to exercise a vote is that we believe that South Australians, and South Australians alone, should determine the future of our state, in the same way that this change will now not allow someone from a foreign country who has resided in South Australia for as little as four weeks to be able to exercise that vote.
So there needs to be an administrative balance, and that is what this proposes. Whilst the member makes a not unreasonable point regarding cross-border communities, I would give him the confidence that there is still a mechanism by which those property owners with the property franchise can have that vote exercised, and that is by nominating a natural person who is on the House of Assembly roll in South Australia.
At a policy setting, it is the view of the government that, whether you are a foreign national, whether you are residing in a foreign country but own property in South Australia or you are a resident of Victoria or Tasmania, the most precious obligation and precious right is for South Australians, and South Australians alone, to exercise their right to determine the future of their community.
Mr TELFER: Thank you, minister, for that clarification. Did the government consider a mechanism to allow there to be a different definition of qualification to allow for interstate voters who own property? Did the government consider a different mechanism to include those potentially disenfranchised property owners under the proposed changes, to allow them to be qualified to vote? Is there a mechanism that was considered too onerous, or was the decision purely that, as a policy setting, the government believes it is only South Australians who should be eligible to vote in local government elections?
The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: The impact of the considerations which the government undertook and the consultation it undertook has resulted in a policy setting in which, as I said and the member has rightfully recounted, only individuals who are on the House of Assembly roll can exercise the privilege of voting in South Australia.
To answer the member's question, we did consider a suite of matters. As you would expect on any drafting of a bill, we have considered a series of options, including alternative propositions that have been put by other individuals, including one of the member's colleagues, that did seek on face value to limit the exercising of a vote to Australian citizens but then failed to limit foreign owners of land from exercising their vote.
So we considered a whole series of matters, we worked closely—as the government and opposition do on the drafting of any bill—with parliamentary counsel and we took advice, and this is the final decision that is before the house at which we arrived.
Mr TELFER: There is another clause about this later on that I will be asking subsequent questions on. I am getting an understanding of that judgement around the policy setting. Are there information-sharing arrangements within Australia across jurisdictions that could streamline the citizenship test, for want of a better word—the citizenship status, potentially—of a person making an application if the parameters were expanded to include interstate voters to be allowed to vote? I covered it within my second reading contribution.
I think this is an area that could potentially undermine the process democratically, and I am trying to work out if there is a way for us to be able to get a more appropriate solution. Are there arrangements for that information sharing between state jurisdictions, or would a federal electoral roll be one that would be more ably referred to when considering the Australian citizenship aspect in particular?
The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised that there is no capacity for us to compel the AEC to give or share their roll with councils. What we do have before us is a capacity to compel and have the checks and balances provided through the House of Assembly roll for eligibility and enrolment. That would be the threshold test.
As the member has been engaging, we would respectfully vehemently disagree that this undermines democratic processes. In fact, it is the very strong view of the government and the very strong view of the public that limiting the exercising of a vote in our state to South Australians actually protects democracy and maintains that really strong faith in the democratic processes.
Mr TELFER: For clarification on the answers in the explanation, can a foreign national who owns property or business in South Australia under these changes nominate a South Australian citizen as their representative to vote in the election? So it is not an Australian citizen/franchise that owns the property, it is a foreign citizen or foreign business owner. Can they nominate a South Australian natural person on the state electoral roll to vote on behalf of that foreign business owner, as an example?
The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: No, they cannot. I refer the member to the wording in the clause, which defines that it is in respect to a body corporate or group that makes that nomination.
Clause passed.
Clause 4.
Mr TELFER: Minister, can you give an explanation as to the necessity for this change in particular? Looking at the existing legislation with the quite prescriptive description of the timing, can you give an explanation as to the reasons why this change is necessary?
The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I can. The underlying principle behind this change was at the request of the Electoral Commissioner, who recommended and sought for more time to be provided between the close of voting and the scrutiny of the count to assist electoral staff to make preparations without undue risks to their health and safety. That gives the cause for the underlying request. What is before the house is an increase in time between the close of polls, voting, and the counting.
A very important aspect and point—I do not mean to speak for the member, but he has been involved in many elections for both state and local government—is that the Saturday starting of the count is really important for scrutineers, and it is very important for candidates. The state government wants to ensure that the counting, the scrutiny, still begins on the Saturday. It is very important, particularly in regional communities—frankly, all communities—where the vast majority of candidates are working or preoccupied during the week, that the accessibility of scrutiny is available to all. As I said, this gives the Electoral Commission and particularly its staff just that bit more time to better get its house in order for the scrutiny to start.
Mr TELFER: Does this change mean there is one day less for electors to have their ballots returned?
The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: It does. There is one less day for those ballots to be returned, but I also give the context that, given the voting period was extended from two weeks to two weeks and four days for the 2022 periodic election, we still have a net gain for the ability for people to exercise and return their ballots.
Mr TELFER: This is probably a comment as much as anything. Representing regional communities, the reliability of Australia Post—their business model is probably becoming more and more challenging, especially for regional communities. This is why I know that the changes that were previously made extended that out a bit further in a reflection of the additional lag time that seems to be experienced by regional communities in particular to get their ballots in.
Was there consideration of an extension to that timeframe at the front end as opposed to the back end? I understand the explanation from the minister about the time between the close and the necessity to have the capacity for scrutineers to be there for the Saturday count, but at the front end of the process, was there consideration of extending it out longer?
The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: It was not considered, only in the context that it was not advised, nor were there submissions on the basis that we should do that. But I certainly agree with the member's reflections on our friends at Australia Post and particularly their service delivery in regional communities. I think that is certainly before a future government, in the usual periodic updates to this, to be adaptive in the future should it be necessary.
Clause passed.
Clauses 5 to 7 passed.
Clause 8.
Mr TELFER: Minister, on this aspect in particular, in a briefing I received, you gave an explanation. I would appreciate you reflecting on that information for the sake of the house about the reasons behind this change in particular. As I understand it, the Electoral Commissioner sometimes authorises an employee of a council to act as a deputy returning officer. Will this sort of arrangement be able to be put in place?
The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I thank the member for his question and appreciate the context to put on the record that this will not, and nor is there any intention to, limit the capacity for ECSA to appoint council employees to the DRO role. This is, in large, a technical amendment which has been sought by the Electoral Commissioner. Certainly from the drafting, it does not in any extent limit the capacity for DROs to be appointed from councils. In fact, as I am sure the member feels, it is good practice for there to be that engagement from local councils into ECSA for the ability to appoint council staff and locals to the DRO position.
Mr TELFER: Based on that explanation, minister, what actual practical difference will this clause change make?
The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: What it does do is elevate the responsibility for the appointments to ECSA, which means that the appointments, the quality and potential and also, importantly, the management of any potential or any real or perceived conflicts of interests as they may arise, are limited and are the responsibility of ECSA to both identify and manage.
Mr TELFER: Just on reflection of that real or perceived conflict of interest and the obligation on ECSA to ascertain or otherwise, what is going to be the process for that? Especially in regional communities, small regional communities indeed, what is the technical legal definition of conflict of interest? I know even in this place, there is often uncertainty about the thresholds between a real or a perceived conflict of interest. In a small regional community we have council areas with fewer than 1,000 electors. A council staff member could theoretically have a relationship or a friendship with people who are nominating as far as the local government elections go. In reflecting on your previous answer, can you give me a definition of the process that the Electoral Commissioner will pursue to consider a real or perceived conflict of interest in each of the 68—or 66 probably at this point—different council elections that they are going to have to appoint the DROs for?
The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: What I will not do is seek to do ECSA's job for them or, for the purposes of time, iterate the entire conflict frameworks which ECSA and councils work within. It is very well established. ECSA are experts in identifying risk and managing conflicts, and we trust them and local governments to do the same. Certainly, at a high level, it is always my intention to see a sensible and pragmatic approach to the management of conflict.
The member raised matters of this in this place. I think what has been clear is that often the management of a conflict is easily dealt with when it is identified, when it is established and when it is managed, as opposed to eliminating all conflict. I trust that ECSA and local government individuals will manage this within existing frameworks. It is my strong sense and wish that it will be done pragmatically and sensibly, taking into account local nuances.
Mr TELFER: Do you envision the necessity for, prior to the DRO being appointed by the commission, a stat dec from the DRO? Although you point to the similarities, it is a pretty nuanced situation when it comes to the management of the election process itself. As soon as you provide that level of uncertainty, you have to have the checks and balances in place to be able to manage with them. This is why I am trying to provide some clarity for the house and for local government, who I am sure will be enthralled watching this debate and then reflecting on the Hansard what sort of arrangements you believe will be necessary and who the obligation for that process will rest on.
The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I will answer the question back to front. The changes will ensure that, as the appointer of the DRO, the Electoral Commission is responsible for the management of these processes, the management of the risk and management of the outcomes. As an independent statutory officer, I would not predispose the undertakings the Electoral Commissioner makes. As the member questioned, it may be the case that there are declarations or otherwise that are sought before the appointment. Again, that does not strike me as either unreasonable or onerous.
As I remarked in my previous answer, conflicts are able to be managed, and often, if not exclusively, the Electoral Commission is expert at managing these throughout state elections. As it is, they manage them through local government elections, but at a fundamental level this does not limit the appointment of council staff to the position of DRO and, in fact, for the record, it is good and reasonable for those DROs to be leaning on local expertise in councils where they can.
Clause passed.
Clause 9.
Mr TELFER: Fleshing out a little bit more the qualification for an elector and the obvious change that this is going to make, does the state government have a plan to inform people who have had a right to vote in council elections—and potentially have participated in council elections for decades—but who now with this change will no longer be able to vote? Does the government have a plan to inform those people of the removal of their right to participate in local government elections?
The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: In respect of councils other than the City of Adelaide, those non-residents, non-citizens, who would otherwise in the usual course of the four-year cycle be applying to be enrolled on the supplementary roll, will not be enrolled. I would expect that for the very small number of those individuals in the non-City of Adelaide part it may be for councils—in fact, I would encourage councils to pick up the phone and let them know why.
As an example, very recently in the course of some media that I did I had cause to see the Town of Gawler and the number of people, and it was under 20 people who were enrolled in the last election who are not citizens. It is a very modest number, a very small number, and any opportunity for councils to be more closely engaged with their local communities would be a good thing.
For the City of Adelaide, those non-citizen electors would simply not be receiving ballot papers. Again, that would be for the City of Adelaide—who I do commend for their proactive approach and their support for this measure, particularly having been in the thick of the matters that have been before the court in the last two years—to manage that.
I should also say that particularly for the City of Adelaide, with international students, as I said before, residents who may have only been there for four years, there is a very transient nature to those who come in and out of residence of the City of Adelaide, perhaps more than any other council in this state. So I think that would be managed, particularly because there would not be a strong underlying expectation from many of the new residents who find their way in there.
Mr TELFER: I once again reiterate that the opposition certainly do support that foreign citizen voting aspect unequivocally, and you pointed out that a colleague in the other place has introduced legislation previously to try to make that change. You point to one example of a council with a small number, but there are examples of council areas that have a significant non-South Australian resident proportion of their council area.
I remember a conversation with the District Council of Robe. From my memory, my understanding was that up to 40 per cent of their ratepayers did not live in the District Council of Robe. I know that a significant proportion of them come from interstate. Even in my electorate, there is a proportion of people from the Northern Territory or elsewhere interstate who own property in Coffin Bay or Port Neill or Streaky Bay and who spend six months of the year in one place, perhaps three months of the year on the road and the other three months of the year in their home, but they are not enrolled in South Australia. Technically, they are still from interstate, but they have been involved for potentially decades voting for their representatives to make sure that the people they put in place are making the best decisions about the infrastructure and services that local government provide.
What does the minister say to those people who pay their council rates, pay thousands of dollars in council rates and have done for potentially decades, or those who employ local people who contribute to the state's economic output who have a significant longstanding stake in the community and have been active in the democratic process to appoint their representatives? What does the minister say to those people who now will not have that opportunity to vote for the representatives who are going to be spending the rates they have been contributing to for potentially decades?
The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Just with respect to Robe, not to second-guess the member's advice, but the—
Mr TELFER: I was reflecting back on my memory.
The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Okay. I will not then correct the member's memory, but what I would say to that very small cohort is the same advice I give many non-citizen residents in my electorate of Cheltenham and that is that the state government hears them, that we are here to represent their interests, that whether you are a voter or whether you are a 40-year resident who has not become a citizen, your voice matters. That is my message to council as well. It is not my message because I see anything wrong. Councils do an extraordinary job with providing support and services to all residents in their area.
I would give the member a high degree of assurance that the very small number of individuals here who are in question who will be impacted by our streamlining and codification of citizenship franchise, a House of Assembly roll franchise, is the balance that is and must be found to ensure and to continue to give confidence to the integrity of elections.
As I have mentioned in my previous answer, and I can reiterate now, South Australians are well placed to have a say in the future of their state and their councils. The very small number of individuals the member refers to, even smaller, because again I reiterate the changes in the previous clause that body corporates and groups still have that exercising of the vote, but simply that that body corporate and that group must have that vote exercised by someone on the House of Assembly roll. Perhaps just through the phrasing of the member's question, I will just be very careful that that is an even smaller group who will be impacted by this franchise change.
Progress reported; committee to sit again.