LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS

The Hon. J.S. LEE (15:02): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for State/Local Government Relations a question about local government elections for 2010.

Leave granted.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: In a media release dated 8 November, the Minister for State/Local Government Relations mentioned that she was confident we would see long-term improvements in voter turnout following the independent review of local government elections. However, as reported on Monday 1 November, enrolment figures obtained by The Advertiser reveal that almost 200,000 businesses and landlords have been struck off the voter roll. Business and landlords who are eligible to vote in most metropolitan councils have been slashed by more than 90 per cent.

The report also pointed out that the reductions follow state government changes to electoral laws forcing businesses and landlords to re-enrol before every local government election. Lobby groups said that this change was poorly advertised, leading to low enrolment, and has disenfranchised businesses and landlords in an attempt to artificially inflate voter turnout to meet the government's participation targets. My questions are:

1. How would the minister address the concerns of lobby groups which have labelled the state government changes as 'undemocratic'?

2. What further changes to local government electoral laws will the government consider?

3. What forms of campaign will the government use to ensure there is a better awareness for voters to exercise their rights?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (15:04): I thank the honourable member for her important questions. Indeed, a review was commenced by the former minister for state/local government relations to look at ways of improving participation in elections. That review resulted in a number of recommendations for change, which included the change to voting for nonresidents, that is, that they did not automatically stay on the roll and would be required to enrol for each election if they wished to vote.

It is some time ago now, but if I recall correctly, I believe that South Australia was the only jurisdiction, if not one of the only jurisdictions, that allowed that automatic entitlement of nonresidents in council elections. Basically, the change we put in place brought us in line with other jurisdictions. So, it is not something that is radically new or different; it is, in fact, in keeping with what happens in most other states and territories in relation to nonresidents voting.

To say that it is undemocratic is, quite simply, misleading. Nonresidents are able to vote by simply enrolling. One of the reasons changes were made in relation to nonresidents was that, historically, nonresidents have an extremely low rate of participation in council elections, yet the maintenance of a nonresident roll was extremely time consuming for councils and administratively quite expensive.

A trial was done in one council area (it might have been at Onkaparinga; I just cannot remember now) looking at the number of hours and the costs associated with keeping a nonresident roll, and the results of that trial were quite extraordinary. It is something that, in effect, costs all ratepayers a great deal. It is a practice that is in keeping with national standards and practices, and it is something that came out of a review that involved very extensive consultation throughout council areas. If I recall correctly, it was very well supported at the time, although no-one seems to be putting up their hand at the moment.

In relation to the notification of nonresidents, a great deal of work has been done to ensure that people are aware of the arrangements. There has been significant liaison between the LGA, the Electoral Commission and councils in determining a promotional strategy for the elections and the sort of information that might be disseminated, which included developing an advertising plan, which was funded by councils.

I understand that a brochure and draft letters were developed by the Electoral Commission, along with the statutory enrolment forms. The Electoral Commissioner wrote to every council CEO, urging them to write to all businesses on the roll to advise them of the changes and the need to enrol. The LGA followed this up with emails encouraging councils to do that. I am advised that all metropolitan councils did so, along with a significant number of country councils as well. There are also a website, banners and posters and there was a media launch—a wide number of initiatives I could go into, which involved general awareness and also communicating with businesses.

In terms of informing businesses, the responsibility largely rests with individual councils. I have said that we would be very interested in compiling feedback post this election. This is the first election that has been conducted using the new provisions, and we will be very keen to hear from major stakeholders at the end of this process in order to stocktake and look at what worked and where improvements might be indicated. I have indicated already on the public record that we are prepared to make changes where there is an indicated need to do so.

The election is not over yet. It has been complicated by the issues around there being three elections within an eight-month period. There is a fair degree of election fatigue out there which I think is potentially masking the beneficial effects that the new changes may have generated. I think we are unlikely to see those benefits this time around but, after we have conducted a bit of a stocktake at the end of this election and go forward in time, and people's knowledge and awareness improve, I am confident, as I have put on the record before, that these changes will result in increased participation in local council elections.