House of Assembly: Thursday, October 16, 2025

Contents

Bills

Statutes Amendment (Local Government Elections Review) Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 9.

Mr TELFER: Some clarification would be appreciated, I am sure, by local government, minister, as to who will actually be responsible for checking off the supplementary roll with the House of Assembly roll, to ensure they are consistent and that those who have professed to be eligible to vote and to be included on the supplementary roll are, indeed, on the House of Assembly roll. Is that the job of the Electoral Commissioner or the local council?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised that, in line with current practices, the chief executive officer of the council is charged with those checks and with that work.

Mr TELFER: This is a supplementary, sir. If you would allow the flexibility, I would appreciate it.

The CHAIR: Alright.

Mr TELFER: Thank you. Can you explain that process, because there is obviously a change? The chief executive officer of the council I believe would not have, naturally, access to the House of Assembly roll across the state, so how does that check get made? What penalties do you envision if there is a mistake, if they get it wrong, if those who are included or otherwise on the supplementary roll are not eligible or vice versa?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I can advise the member that there will be no penalties, and there are no penalties attached to the current checks that are required by the chief executive. We are certainly not intending to make criminals of administrative matters through this.

I can advise that the new section—that will provide that the Electoral Commissioner must provide the chief executive with any information in the Electoral Commissioner's possession about whether a person is a state elector, being the House of Assembly—is a third check that now must be undertaken by the chief executive. The two current checks look at whether an individual is on the assessment roll and not enrolled as a resident, and the third check will look at whether that voter is on the House of Assembly roll, and that will be provided, by statute, by the Electoral Commissioner to the chief executive of a council.

Clause passed.

Clause 10.

Mr TELFER: Will candidates be entitled to obtain an electronic version of the voter roll?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I can advise that there is no change in this section to the information that is provided to a candidate, but rather it changes that the information is provided from the returning officer rather than the council. The status quo remains. The access to that information is unchanged, but it is simply who provides that information under the act that is changing.

Mr TELFER: What is that status quo at the moment? Can candidates obtain an electronic version of the voter roll?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: We are clarifying that. If I can have that information during the committee stage I will provide it, otherwise it will be between the houses.

Mr TELFER: Thank you. I reflect that it was a hard copy back in the old days when I went through the process. It is not a gotcha: I am just trying to find out. Minister, are you aware, or have you been made aware by the Electoral Commissioner, of any circumstances where a voter roll has been provided to a candidate and that version has subsequently been used for a non-election related purpose: to advertise a business, tout for donations or other nefarious purposes? Are you aware of any examples of that?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Not that I am advised. From recollection, I cannot recall any previous periodic reports undertaken by the Electoral Commissioner where it has been identified, either.

Clause passed.

Clause 11.

Mr TELFER: Is it the intention of the government to prohibit from eligibility any candidates who have had an adverse finding made about them by integrity agencies such as the Ombudsman, local government Behavioural Standards Panel or ICAC?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: No.

Mr TELFER: I also note that the bill does not remove an entitlement to stand for election if the person has had an order made against them by SACAT pursuant to part 4 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1993. Can you take the house through the thinking in relation to that issue as to why not?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: No, it does not and, frankly, nor should it. It is totally improper for an act to limit candidates based upon whether there are guardianship orders.

Clause passed.

Clause 12.

Mr TELFER: Minister, the bill proposes that the returning officer publishes the number of people running in each local government election but not the names. Reflecting back—and I covered this in my second reading speech—this was a change that was brought in under the previous local government minister in their wisdom as a legislator. At the time, I encouraged them to reconsider the change because I saw the advantage in there continuing to be transparency and understanding for communities going through the nominations process of not just the number of nominees but also the names of those nominees.

As I reflected on in my second reading speech, I think it is especially pertinent and front and centre for regional communities. This is why throughout the process I have been interested in receiving feedback from councils on their perspective on this particular clause. I am sure you, through your consultation process, received a number of different pieces of feedback. This is one that I have heard loud and clear since the tabling of the legislation, that a significant proportion of local government—I am not going to say all of it, but a significant proportion—is pretty keen to have both the number and the names of the candidates who are running for election be published.

It is especially pertinent in regional communities, if they reflect on the names as they come in, whether there is, in the eyes of other potential candidates, someone who is suited or otherwise unsuited to be a candidate, as opposed to just the number. I will not speak specifically about them, but there are a couple of examples around the state where it is probably fair to say communities dodged a bullet with the one individual who missed out, but if they were the ones who automatically got elected because there was not a contest as there was only the pure number of candidates who nominated for the positions, then you could have potentially risky and perverse outcomes. This is why I think the smaller the community the more awareness there is around that.

Was there consideration of including the aspect of the names of the candidates, not just the numbers, when the government was considering the feedback from local government in particular?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: If I can just perhaps console the member on his reflections that he was unable to persuade Vickie Chapman on something: he is no orphan there. She was a fierce advocate. If I may both agree and reflect on the member's remarks, these changes were implemented by the former government and resoundingly the sector has put to the former minister and myself that there was a strong appetite to fix a problem, if I may put it that way, that these changes brought out.

The member has adequately articulated those matters that this clause seeks to address—and, for the purpose of time, I will not reiterate them—including, most importantly, that there is full representation, that there are good nominations and also, importantly, that no ward and no constituency or community goes without representation.

Were all matters considered? They were considered through the participation review and subsequent matters which were considered by myself and cabinet and in the drafting. But I am not persuaded, nor have I been persuaded, that the problem that was created by the former changes are not resolved by identification of numbers. The issue here is that there are zero nominations in certain wards. Knowing whether Mr J or Mrs Y have nominated is immaterial to ensuring that there is a full suite of nominations for each ward or area.

Mr TELFER: Obviously, I have put my position and I will be considering it between the houses and in discussions as well. Also, within this proposed section 21(1), minister, the words 'as far as is reasonably practicable' are used. What does that mean in practice? Is it the government's expectation that nominations will be published within the hour, on the same day, or within a few working days? Does this expectation around timing of publication change, depending on how close to the end of nominations those nominations are lodged? Can you give an explanation, minister, as to what 'as far as is reasonably practicable' means, the length of time you expect?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: The member's question gives me the opportunity to note my expectations. Yes, I think 'as far as is reasonably practicable' is not a relative function; it is whether you are three days or two weeks out from the close of nominations it should be published. The record should be up to date. 'As far as is reasonably practicable' just gives, through the drafting, as is the case with many of these prescriptive clauses in all pieces of statute, effectively, most importantly, best reasonable endeavours by the responsible bodies to do this.

It is my expectation as minister, and I take it that it will be the expectation of the house, that these are undertaken as a high order of priority and, certainly, specific to the member's question, that there is not a relativity to the priority which is given, depending upon how far out from the close of nominations.

Mr TELFER: Can you give an insight into what discussions you may have had with the commissioner as to how this is going to be enforced in practice? Especially now, with the electronic nominations that go through to the Electoral Commissioner, what advice have you got about that process? Will someone at ECSA be monitoring nominations as they come in in real time, or perhaps will a nominated officer at the council receive an automated alert? What do you envision? What advice have you got about what steps the Electoral Commissioner will put in place to ensure that this proposed clause is complied with?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: The steps the Electoral Commissioner puts in place to execute the effect of this clause is entirely a matter for the Electoral Commissioner. However, I have noted, through the work that we have done with the Electoral Commissioner, that he is fully supportive of this clause and has expressed absolutely no concerns or reservations about the commission's capacity to affect parliament's will.

Clause passed.

Clause 13 passed.

Clause 14.

Mr TELFER: On this one in particular, is the requirement of the returning officer contemplated in proposed section 29(3)(a) one that can be carried out by a deputy returning officer?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: What I can advise is that the draft, or the changes of the section or the amendment to this section, does not amend the obligation upon the returning officer to be undertaking this work. It simply changes the timing that is before the commissioner and ROs to undertake usual delegations or to execute usual delegations. I am not advised on whether that currently occurs by DROs or only by ROs, but I can advise the member that the drafting of this clause does not change the status quo.

Mr TELFER: The nuance of it—I understand you cannot necessarily give a fulsome explanation on the spot, but I would be interested. If this was a power that could be then delegated to a deputy returning officer—and in the previous explanation you speak about the nuances of the appointment of those DROs—could the requirements under this proposed section be carried out by an employee of a council?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised and can advise the member that the relationship between the RO and DRO, as provided in the section, is unchanged by this clause. Notwithstanding that, I will endeavour to take the specific nature of the member's question on notice and either return to him directly or between the houses.

Clause passed.

Clause 15 passed.

Clause 16.

Mr TELFER: I would certainly appreciate for the house, and for those tuning in who are interested in this, some explanation as to what the minister is envisioning with the trial of in-person voting. I was reflecting on the member for Davenport's contribution, where she reflected that we are not quite yet at the point of electronic voting. I encouraged her to contemplate herself an amendment to this act that may consider it, even as a trial.

I do understand that the leadership of some of Australia's biggest companies—banks and not-for-profits, like SACA—have recently gone through their processes being conducted by means of electronic voting. Apart from the legislation, what are the obstacles to a trial of online electronic voting in local government elections?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am not in a position to respond, simply because it is not a matter before us by way of the clause amendment.

Mr TELFER: Is the trial of an in-person voting process, as envisioned within this clause, primarily aimed at saving money, or does the government have some other objectives in mind, obviously given the current and ever-increasing costs of the individually addressed letters to each eligible voter and also the potential convenience of other voting mechanisms? What is the aim of this trial in particular? What are the objectives in mind from the government?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: The primary objective is to seek to provide a degree of access and additional encouragement for participation in local government elections. Just for the member's benefit—I know that he had a concern around the cost saving or otherwise—I can indicate that whilst the legislation will provide for a future trial, that future trial will need to be executed through future regulations. The future government will consider those. There will be a high degree of consultation, obviously, with the sector, the Electoral Commission and others, but it would not be replacing any method of voting. Therefore, there is no undertaking by the government by way of cost replication, cost replacement or cost saving.

Mr TELFER: What then is the objective or the motivation behind this particular change? Is it something that the Electoral Commissioner was specifically seeking? It is one which is just a bit out of the blue from my perspective.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: No, the Electoral Commissioner did not make a recommendation.

Mr TELFER: Where did it come from? That is all I was trying to find out.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: It is before the government to undertake its own initiatives.

Clause passed.

Clause 17 passed.

Clause 18.

Mr TELFER: On this one, this is a fairly fulsome change and I would encourage the minister to furnish the house with some explanation as to why. This is obviously looking at the designated place for there to be an electoral count. Local government elections are a little bit more nuanced, obviously, than state government ones, and issues with obstruction or misbehaviour of scrutineers or the like have been very minimal. You could certainly count on one hand, probably, the number of times. Can you give an explanation as to the reasoning behind putting in such a fulsome clause as this when it comes to the maintenance of order at or near certain places?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I agree with the member on his observations that, largely, local government elections have particular nuance, but what I would state and reiterate unequivocally is that there is no nuance or relativity when it comes to protecting the interests of working people and of Electoral Commission staff or volunteers in polling places. Their wellbeing and their safety is paramount.

This is a new clause that was first ideated by the Electoral Commissioner, in fact, before his recommendations were made public. It was, if not the first, one of the first matters that he raised with me when I met with him, and that was the concerns that he had around some of the pretty disgraceful and appalling behaviour by individuals—not by a cohort or otherwise, but individuals—and this clause is sending a very clear message from the government that there is no relativity and there is no room for cutting corners when it comes to the wellbeing and safety of those who participate in supporting the fair and free conduct of our elections.

Mr TELFER: In reflecting on the previous clauses that we have been talking about with the trial of in-person voting, is this clause especially pertinent if there was to be a trial or a continuation of in-person voting? The postal voting process that local government currently uses obviously means there is less face-to-face interaction between candidates, voters and the like.

Are you envisioning that this would be especially pertinent if you are introducing into the local government election process the potential for face-to-face interactions getting to the point that we see with some of the processes at state government elections and the rat-race of how-to-votes and the level of enforced decorum that is required? Reflecting on the trial of in-person voting, do you think this is something that is especially pertinent in that situation?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Largely, no. In fact, having been involved in more elections than I care to remember—and no doubt the member as well—polling day, or in-person polling, largely in our state and in our country is an exemplar of civil and responsible behaviours by electors and individuals. Most people at a state election or a federal election just want to get in, exercise their privilege and get a sausage on the way out. So, no, this is not crafted with that in mind. This is certainly, as I mentioned in my previous answer, per the discussions I had with the Electoral Commissioner largely around scrutineering.

No doubt this will have application for any place the Electoral Commissioner is controlling, but so does the work health and safety legislation that sits above all of this. So, no, this is a clear statement that when it comes to the counts, scrutineers, individuals, supporters, candidates or otherwise, just be responsible and grow up. This is not sheep stations. This is not War and Peace. I think it was reflected in the motion before the house just a little while ago that democracy is important. We have the privilege of living in it and enjoying it, but it needs to be continually worked on. This sends a clear message that there is no equivocating when it comes to protecting that.

Clause passed.

Clause 19.

Mr TELFER: Just reflecting on how this is not War and Peace, democracy can indeed be, if it gets to that point. Clause 19 introduces the prohibition of advocacy of forms of voting inconsistent with the act. Is it expected or envisioned that the Electoral Commissioner will enforce this new requirement proactively, or upon complaint?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I hope both, and that is generally the approach of the Electoral Commission and Commissioner to exercise their prerogative with respect to enforcement of all their legislative functions, state and local government.

This was a recommendation from the Electoral Commissioner, and these provisions, as drafted, are substantially similar to the equivalent provisions in the Electoral Act 1985. In saying that, I then expect and presume that the Electoral Commissioner will undertake or exercise their prerogative in a similar manner as they exercise their prerogative under the state act, the state Electoral Act 1985.

At its core, this amendment will prohibit people and groups from misleading or deceiving electors in relation to how they should mark their ballot papers and/or exercise their vote in an environment where we—and when I say 'we' I think the whole community here and all policy leaders—are collaboratively and with best endeavours seeking to encourage more and more people to participate in elections, particularly local government elections.

What we do not want to see is individuals either deliberately or inadvertently encouraging the incorrect exercise of that vote. It is a wasted vote. We do not want to see that, and we will leave it to the Electoral Commissioner to enforce.

Mr TELFER: The High Court has often held that Australians have wide latitude to express their political perspectives, their opinions in relation to political matters. Has the government obtained advice on whether this proposed clause may breach citizens' implied rights to freedom of speech?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I will consider that between the houses. However, as I said, because this clause is substantially similar to the existing wording of the Electoral Act 1985, I presume that, as is the case in all matters, the existing statute book is constitutional, and I would be both well informed and have good reason to believe that this would not be falling foul of the implied right to political communication of the commonwealth.

Mr TELFER: For further clarification, the maximum penalty, as set out within this clause, is $2,500. Is it within the scope of the Electoral Commissioner to decide a penalty up to that amount, and is it per offence, or do you reflect—like you have on other aspects—that you envision it will be instigated and managed the same way as the existing state legislation?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I have received no advice from the Electoral Commissioner that he or the organisation would be exercising their prerogative under section 126 of the Electoral Act, or that the way they enforce it would be any different. In the absence of any advice that they will be undertaking this enforcement differently, it is right for us to consider, given the similar nature between section 126 of the Electoral Act and this clause, that it will be exercised and enforced in a similar if not identical manner.

Clause passed.

Clause 20 passed.

Clause 21.

Mr TELFER: On this one in particular, and talking about gifts, given that sitting elected members have obligations to make ongoing disclosures about their financial affairs during the entirety of their four-year terms, is it the case that there are greater levels of disclosure required for sitting elected members than there are for as yet unelected candidates?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Yes, there is a difference of reporting and that is just because of the nature of the fact that a councillor must undertake those obligations and those responsibilities from the day that they are elected, sworn, and the only way that we would be able to find an equivalency with a potential candidate would be if we implemented a scheme from three years 11 months out from the election and we think that is onerous. The period that this bill contemplates we think is the balance to not provide an absolute equivalency but to ensure that the potential candidates do not game the system.

Mr TELFER: I think that we could probably agree that transparency is inherently a good thing. Could the extra level of reporting that is required by a current sitting elected member put them at a disadvantage compared with a candidate? I will give you an example.

The Hon. J.K. Szakacs interjecting:

Mr TELFER: No, not at all. I am running scenarios that I envision probably most likely get faced not in communities where I have experience of local governments but probably more in the metropolitan area. For instance, the elected member could be criticised for their modest shareholding in a controversial company, reflecting back, whilst the candidate making the accusations is not required to disclose that they hold comparative or an even more number of shares in a comparable controversial company. Because of the difference in the level of transparency, is there a potential for an inherent disadvantage between sitting elected members opposed to a candidate coming in?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: This clause does not contemplate or seek to implement a register of interest scheme for candidates. That was the example that the member used about a shareholding. That is a matter of the register of interests, which is not around candidate disclosures. Again, this is around gift returns—nor are we seeking to implement a scheme of a register of interests as such for candidates, because that does not exist in the state election either.

Clause passed.

Clause 22 passed.

Clause 23.

Mr TELFER: Minister, what is the reason given for the five-day number given to the returning officer in the proposed section 87(2)? Why five days? Should this not be as soon as practicable?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: This is a matter of 'within five days', as opposed to mandating a minimum time or maximum time. Sorry, this is imposing a maximum time not a reasonable time.

Mr TELFER: What then is the reason for the eight weeks given to the returning officer in the proposed section 87(2)(b)? Is it not possible that during this extraordinarily long period of time, a candidate could be elected, they could take their oath, and then they could sit at a council meeting all without the electorate or other candidates having this disclosure information available to them?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I can advise that the eight weeks for return is the existing eight weeks, as I am advised. With respect to my previous answer around the five days and the member's question, I can advise that the existing provision is for seven days and we have reduced that to five days—or we are proposing to reduce that to five days.

Mr TELFER: You had not received any advice through the process that the eight-week period, which is referred to in the proposed section (87)(2)(b) was overly sufficient for the expectation? Were there any recommendations around changing that number? If you have changed the seven to five, were there any recommendations about changing the eight to a different number?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised that it was certainly the nature of discussions between officers at an officer level by my departmental advisers on the eight weeks, but it was arrived at the eight weeks as a maximum. We would obviously encourage and seek all best endeavours from the commission to be working well within those timeframes.

Clause passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00.