Bills

Local Government (Casual Vacancies) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 23 February 2023.)

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (15:33): I rise today to speak in support of the Local Government (Casual Vacancies) Amendment Bill 2023. In what has been a roller-coaster ride of uncertainties and trying times for several of our council members around our state, I am glad these amendments have passed through the other place, and commend the member for Flinders for his efforts and swift actions in ensuring that this issue is resolved.

Whilst technological innovation has seen drastic changes to the methods of our processes and procedures of government, this scenario that unfolded has unfortunately highlighted the detrimental effects of over-reliance on our technology. It is my understanding that the Electoral Commission encouraged the use of technology to lodge campaign returns.

In the case of the online portals used for the Electoral Commission of South Australia, it would be a miracle to assume that all council members would have no issues in lodging their papers. We are all human and, after all, many communities, especially those communities in our regions, will always suffer from setbacks, such as poor internet and delayed Australian postage.

However, the manner in which the government responded to the situation was nothing short of appalling because this issue had been raised with the Electoral Commission several times; in fact, as the member for Flinders highlighted in the other place, council members had been having issues with lodging their paperwork before the election when nominations were due. One would only assume, if an issue this significant had occurred, the Minister for Local Government, the Attorney-General and the Electoral Commission would work together to ensure that this situation did not happen again.

Instead, the issues of the online portal used by the Electoral Commission were neglected, meaning council members were left scrambling, ultimately resorting to alternative sources of sending their campaign returns forms back. When hearing and analysing the time lines and the lack of correspondence between the Minister for Local Government, the Attorney-General and the Electoral Commission, I must say I was very disappointed. Given the minister's and the Attorney-General's responsibility to the Electoral Commission, I struggle to understand how not one of the pair decided to use their initiative to seek out answers.

Our elections are the primary function of the Electoral Commission of South Australia. It should not have taken a month to start communicating and corresponding with our council members to warn them that their papers were overdue. That period of a month, I may add, was the only time frame before council members lost their positions. This process has failed miserably and we need answers to ensure that this situation does not happen again.

I certainly welcome this legislative change. It really is the only appropriate way to help out the 36 communities and 45 council members who have essentially been left in the dark with the future of their position. However, I hope that the Minister for Local Government and the Attorney-General can also take a lesson out of their mistakes from this situation. I completely support transparency in our democratic process, but when our processes fail, the relevant minister must act accordingly. It is not unreasonable to ask that they effectively manage their responsibilities.

We in this house and in the other place need to look out for our council members as much as possible. They are the good Samaritans who put in a great deal of effort, often working extensive hours in serving our communities. It is important to remember that these council members campaign for their local communities to assist, develop and support change. They do not reap many financial benefits. I certainly wish all 36 communities and 45 council members the best with their terms and hope this legislative change can in some way make up for the stress and angst caused.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:38): I rise to speak in favour of the Local Government (Casual Vacancies) Amendment Bill on behalf the Greens and to indicate that we will be supporting the bill. I listened closely to the speech by the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the bill. It seems that there might be lessons to be learned by both sides of politics because I remember, when I first came into this parliament back in May 2021, one of the first matters that I dealt with at that time was the local government amendment bill. That reform piece had been knocking around for some time.

I know that a number of groups had been advocating for the bill to be advanced quickly because there was concern that we were heading into an election. What has happened, of course, is because the bill was dealt with quite quickly and quite close to the election, there were some unintended consequences. I am not seeking to make a partisan point; I am just pointing out that there have been some areas here on both sides of politics in terms of how the issue has been dealt with.

As I indicated, the Greens are supportive of this bill. After 45 local government council members lost their positions for failure to lodge their campaign donation return on time, we are pleased to see that the government has intervened. The bill is a simple one. It provides for a 10-day extension to those affected council members while ensuring decisions made by those councils since the election remain valid.

One of the four pillars that underpin the Greens political party is participatory democracy. We believe that real progress comes when enough people believe it is possible to make a difference and to do something about it. Of course, local government is often the most accessible level of government for people to participate in. Many people who run the council elections are new to the processes involved in public office and run without the support of political party machines. Indeed, this particular form was a new requirement brought in as part of the recent local government reforms.

I want to make it very clear that the Greens support requiring disclosure of campaign donations of this kind. Indeed, it was a Greens amendment that was made to the bill that required the disclosure of campaign donations prior to the campaign proper, as well. We certainly would not be supporting any moves to water down that requirement or to make it easier for council members to not disclose their donations, but we do recognise that something has gone awry in this instance and it needs to be amended.

There has been some commentary in the media about whether or not the information provided by the Electoral Commission was clear and whether or not the ECSA website was functionally effectively. I will not speculate on that. That is a matter for the minister to investigate and a matter that should be looked at as part of the broader investigation into what has happened here.

When 45 people make a minor administrative error it is possible that something has gone wrong. It is also vital, when we are considering this piece of legislation, that we consider the democratic principle; that is, the electors should get the council that they voted for. I am reminded of my days in the Senate when we saw the fiasco that unfolded a few years after regarding citizenship, when members of that place had failed to comply with what was quite a minor administrative decision and, as a result, we saw their electors being disenfranchised, and members who had not been democratically elected being elevated to that chamber on the basis of a minor administrative error.

I submit to you, Mr President, that if we were to allow the status quo to stand—that is, if this parliament was not to intervene and 45 councillors were to lose their positions—then I am concerned that those communities are going to be disenfranchised, and that is not a good thing for our democracy. While ECSA is already conducting 10 supplementary elections for positions that remain unfilled, we do need to, if we can, avoid the prospect of additional by-elections in affected council areas.

Whilst I notice that in some areas there may potentially be a countback mechanism, again, that is not quite the same as the communities getting the member that they voted for just a few months earlier. Not only is it preferable to avoid the cost of more by-elections, it is also vital that affected councils can continue their core business of serving their communities. Residents of local council areas deserve to have effective and functioning councils and so this extension will achieve that.

The Greens look forward to the results of the reviews being undertaken by the minister and the Electoral Commission to see whether there are any options for improving the Local Government Act. Indeed, I have indicated previously that I think there are things that could be done. I know the Hon. Mr Pangallo has mooted a number of changes as well that I think have merit. We are certainly keen to see what happens as part of this review and have a more fulsome discussion of those matters when they come before the parliament in due course. With that, I will conclude my remarks.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (15:44): I rise to speak on the Local Government (Casual Vacancies) Amendment Bill, which seeks to amend the Local Government Act to fix a mess created by elected councillors and mayors who failed to lodge campaign donation returns on time. The aim of this bill, as the local government minister reassures us, is to avoid burdening taxpayers with hefty costs in any supplementary elections, estimated to vary between $8,000 and $40,000, and there could be as many as 45.

It is obvious from the support of Labor and the Liberals that this amendment will go through this chamber, as it did without much debate in the House of Assembly. Ordinarily, I would oppose this legislation, particularly given the retrospective nature of these changes. It is classic backside covering for the tardiness and sloppiness of the four dozen or so candidates who failed to abide by the law.

I cannot understand the haste here. Why should the SACAT not hear the 30 or so appeals and make a determination rather than having legislation rushed through to circumvent the proper process that was agreed to by parliament? I suspect it is because the government has received Crown opinion, a question I intend putting to the government in the committee stage.

Here is another question: I am uncertain about the backgrounds of all the councillors and mayors affected, but I would certainly like to know what their political affiliations are. It would not surprise me that a considerable number would be aligned to either the Labor or Liberal parties. Cynicism aside, the changes made in this place were very precise to any prospective candidate at the last local government elections.

When previously a single return had to go to the council CEO, now they are required to complete two either on online portals provided to every candidate or other means. These changes were strongly endorsed by the Local Government Association itself. You do not expect me to believe that some of these candidates had little or no knowledge of their obligations at the time they contemplated running and nominating. Understanding those obligations does not require that much brainpower or effort to ensure compliance.

Of the 1,258 candidates who stood, 45 messed up for one reason or another. Those contemplating running for office, whether in local, state or federal government, must surely need to do their due diligence about what is required. They cannot blame the Electoral Commission for not being aware or blaming frustration for not being able to lodge their declarations online, because the commissioner says he did what was required of them, and more.

I have heard much commentary in the media about this situation and the blame game is being aimed squarely at the Electoral Commissioner, who had responsibility for these declarations for the first time. It seems quite convenient to throw the Electoral Commissioner, Mick Sherry, and his team under the bus, as the member for Flinders, a former regional mayor and president of the LGA, did in his spray at Minister Brock. I have a question or two for him: how many candidates caught up in the fiasco are known to him or his party? Does he know the circumstances behind each of those failed candidates?

While I have been informed about one situation where a councillor took photographic evidence for proof of his lodgement at the Electoral Commission office, and which could not be found afterwards by commission staff, I will not go boots and all at Mr Sherry and his team, as some have done.

The year 2022 was a challenging year for the Electoral Commission. They have been frustrated because of parliament's failure to pass legislation to make voting smoother amid the uncertainty of a pandemic. They had to prepare for the March state election, requiring the recruiting of many thousands to work at polling centres and counting ballots. Then, the May federal election, and, lastly, the local government elections in November. Voting fatigue plagued voters in South Australia, and I am hoping that this can be overcome in any review of the election process, for both local and state government, and I will add some of my perceptions shortly.

Back to Mr Sherry and his exasperation from the fallout. While acknowledging that candidates may have held other jobs that distracted their attention from legislated detail, he made some salient observations on ABC morning and afternoon radio last month. Allow me to refer to some of his comments. I quote from 13 February:

The Commission puts extensive effort into ensuring candidates are aware and assist them with the whole election process and there is a variety of different ways in which we do that, but ultimately it comes back to the candidates have to be aware of their legislative obligations.

To which interviewer David Bevan crudely put to him:

And you are saying there is no way that anybody with half a brain who is standing for council did not know their obligations, they all should have known?

In other words, ignorance of the law is not, and should not be used as, a card to get you out of a predicament. Mr Sherry then went on to explain what the Electoral Commission did to ensure there was compliance, and it was extensive. Here is a quote from Mr Sherry:

I will just give you some examples of that, we provide a comprehensive candidate handbook that is not in legalistic terms it is very, very straightforward, and easy to understand and that contains the requirements to lodge donation returns. We also do numerous candidate briefing sessions both in person, they are recorded and via webinars that we invite anyone to participate in.

He then went on:

We sent letters to all of the people; it was not just the 45—they are the ones that we are left with after this cut-off date. There was quite a lot more that had not lodged getting closer to that time that we were corresponding with.

On another ABC program that day, Mr Sherry said:

Candidates have a whole range of different options available to them. They can walk in here and provide it to us, they can send it through the post if they have time. Some have just emailed it and sent it in to us. There have been others that have taken a photo on their phone, sent it in to us, and we have uploaded it on their behalf. So many ways of which they can lodge their return.

If you nominate for the council elections, we send you a letter advising that the nomination has been received…and highlighting your requirement now to lodge two returns.

Mr Sherry pointed out that even at the end of the election they send out not one but two follow-up emails. SACAT would and should be able to decide on the bona fides of each appeal that has been lodged.

This brings me to the urgent amendments that now need to be made to local government elections. It needs to be a priority for the minister, who is extremely knowledgeable about the workings of local government given his years of distinguished service in that sector. I understand the minister and the LGA have begun a review and there will be more discussions with the sector in months to come about changes that need to be implemented.

I cannot emphasise more the importance of professionalising the local government sector. The days of infrequent town hall meetings presided by well-meaning retirees and volunteer councillors is long gone; the governance of councils must now reflect community expectations. Local government in Greater Adelaide and in some regions is big business, dealing in multimillion-dollar budgets and complex issues like infrastructure, planning and development.

In recent years, and with the onset of the digital age which gives individuals instant reach to a horde of readers on social media platforms, we are witnessing the rise of local government activism, with voices representing a multitude of interests and political viewpoints. Some wackos have managed to get themselves elected with a modicum of votes on dangerous platforms.

Of course, this is democracy at work, but for democracy to work effectively at any level people with voting rights must exercise them. There is no point in whining about a vocal minority trying to derail progressive action when the silent majority fail to express their view where it really counts—in the ballot box.

A key reform area for me is the election process, and I will briefly outline the ideas I will be advocating in any review. I have already made them to the LGA, the minister's office, and many local government officials I have consulted with. First on the list is eligibility to vote. It must conform to the requirements mandated in state and federal elections, and that is that you must be an Australian citizen. I have raised this previously and my amendment was defeated during the debate of the local government reform bill.

During the debate I raised concerning issues that have since materialised, like ballot fraud and national security fears over foreign influence infiltrating all levels of government, but especially local government. ASIO has issued warnings and, not long after I asked the Attorney-General whether any suspected spies had been exposed in this state, there was publicity about a staff member at Marion council being forced out of the country by our agency itself.

I simply cannot comprehend why foreign students, many from China and without any skin in the game in this state or city, are given the right to vote on supplementary roles in City of Adelaide elections if they can show they have resided here for a minimum of 30 days. I cannot find any other country in the democratic world that has such a lax attitude to non-residents and voting rights.

As has been reported by the Electoral Commissioner himself, there were worrying instances of fraud detected through the manipulation of postal ballots involving international students. I raise this red flag: postal voting, as it operates now, needs to be scrapped. We need to go back to the drawing board with the voting process.

I will again push for mandatory voting, because it is vital to significantly lift the participation rate from its current moribund state of around 30 per cent turnout. Places where it is mandatory have seen participation rates of 85 per cent or more. There needs to be early voting at designated civic polling centres and a designated polling day where ratepayers can cast votes, as we have in state and federal elections. The voting rights of property owners or business owners in council areas need to be restored.

Do we look at a trial of electronic voting (although this does have risks)? For transparency, council meetings must be recorded and streamed live for the benefit of ratepayers unable to attend. There must be mandatory training models for prospective candidates before they nominate, as happens in Victoria. If we had that we may have avoided the chaos and the mess we are having to deal with today.

Then, there is the probity of nominees, candidates and elected officials themselves. I will be pushing that they are required to provide police clearances before being declared eligible to stand. Right now we would not have a clue whether there are elected council representatives or candidates who have criminal records or any criminal action pending.

There is a lot of work ahead for Minister Brock, but he has the opportunity to modernise and professionalise a very important tier of government. Thank you.

The Hon. R.B. MARTIN (15:58): Today, I rise to speak in favour of the Local Government (Casual Vacancies) Amendment Bill 2023. This bill deals with the situation that has arisen where vacancies have been created for a significant number of council member positions due to those members' failure to lodge their campaign donations returns within the statutory deadline.

The bill proposes to amend section 54 of the Local Government Act to retrospectively disapply the provisions that automatically make a member's position vacant when they have not lodged their return within one month of the statutory deadline for doing so. This deadline is 30 days after the conclusion of the election.

The bill will, in effect, deem the vacancies to have not occurred. This will provide a simple solution that would otherwise have an unacceptable impact on councils' communities through additional costs that may occur through supplementary elections or delays in important council business.

It is important to note that the bill does not remove the obligation for all candidates to manage their campaign donations and to furnish returns so that their communities can see what they have received. The bill also puts in place measures to make sure that acts and decisions by any council members and their councils caught up in this disclosure matter are not invalid due to this change. Transparency is vitally important in elections and candidates should be obliged to put in returns, even if they are returns that show no money has been received by the candidate. However, the obligation to submit a return should not be overly burdensome. A robust and commonsense system is required.

In the last sitting week, I spoke on a matter of interest and praised the work of the Electoral Commission of South Australia. They are diligent, careful and their integrity is unquestionable. However, like all of us, they are not infallible. I have been told by affected council members of difficulties with submitting forms, of differing advice from ECSA officials, of challenges with the online platform, and the subsequent inability to lodge returns in person. While the overwhelming evidence is that the system worked for almost every candidate in the local government elections, I think it is fair to ask questions of the system in place to take returns.

I have personal experience with lodging returns with the Electoral Commissioner of South Australia and I have on rare occasions had similar issues with broken technology and inconsistent advice. Fortunately, I was able to overcome any technical difficulties and had a positive relationship with ECSA which allowed returns to ultimately be submitted on time, but for a first-time candidate caught up in this problem, I do have some sympathy.

This bill is a commonsense solution to the disclosure problem and it is supported by the Local Government Association. It will save the South Australian population what could be hundreds of thousands of dollars in unnecessary by-elections, and it ensures the integrity of any decisions made by candidates and councils caught up in this mess. I commend the bill.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (16:01): Contrary to some of the debate which has been put, particularly by the Hon. Mr Pangallo, I think this bill needs to be seen as very much an extraordinary measure. I do not think that it is really seeking to cover anything. In fact, contrary to that rather strange proposition, I think this bill makes very clear that we are baring all. If you want to know how many people were politically affiliated in the last council elections, you can look that up. In fact, as referred to by some political operatives in the federal sphere, you can just Google it. It is actually not even hard, so I find it really odd to say that in some way we are covering up.

What this bill proposes to do is amend section 54 of the Local Government Act and it allows us to retrospectively disapply—I am not sure that that is a word but it does achieve that aim—the provisions that automatically normally would apply from that section. So it will not surprise many here, other than perhaps the Hon. Mr Pangallo, to know that normally we do not do this. This measure is applied, my understanding is, 'sparingly' would be a word generously used; I think a more appropriate word would be 'once'. We have done this once. I will get to that later on.

So what does all this mean? Newly elected members who failed to submit themselves to be in line with their statutory requirements are not immediately declared vacant from their position. That is what we are trying to do. It is important that they did meet this statutory requirement because it concerns the management of campaign donations, so it is actually pretty important that they meet this statutory requirement but we are waiving it here.

So what actually happened? What did they do? I think it is important, given the debate that has been put and, indeed, our committee stage, that we spend a bit of time talking about this for those avid readers of Hansard. A significant number of local government elected members were unable to provide campaign donation return information to the Electoral Commissioner within the time period required. It is worth noting at this time that there were recent changes to the act in this respect in regard to local government elections.

The Local Government (Elections) Act was amended after we had the last election. So after the last election, when we used to do things the same way every single time, we made a change, and that occurred in 2021. This change changed, of course, as change does, the reporting requirement from one of reporting to the CEO of the council to instead reporting directly to the Electoral Commissioner through the ECSA. This is the first election, as I have said, where this change has come into effect.

There are certain new duties which are also incumbent upon ECSA to remind candidates and elected members of their duties and this was the first time that ECSA was doing that too. So for the Electoral Commission, it was the first run for them; and for candidates, it was the first run for them. I am reliably informed by the Hon. Mr Pangallo that there were 1,258 candidates and I think only about 90 of them failed to meet the requirements.

The fact is that this change, while necessary to relieve operational cost to individual councils, has created a level of chaos, because instead of reporting it to your CEO and every single council having lots of feedback that they need to get and the council CEO then forwarding to it on to Electoral Commission SA, we just send it straight to ECSA.

That creates, of course, an interesting thing. If you can imagine, if there are 1,258 candidates and there is only one Electoral Commissioner—as was pointed out by the Hon. Mr Martin, there were quite a few elections run last year and, indeed, I think the Hon. Mr Pangallo conceded that—it is possible that receiving 1,258 emails or more, if you are a particularly concerned candidate, might be a lot. That might be a bit of a load and if it is the first time that you have ever done it, I wonder how the chaos ensued.

While upwards of 40 councillors failed to submit their forms to the Electoral Commission, it is well worth noting at that point that with 68 councils across our state and with I think an average of around 10 members on each council, we are talking about an amount of about 5 per cent of local government elected councillors failing to meet the requirement—5 per cent, or probably a little bit less than that.

If then we add the candidates or those who were not elected—I am informed there were about 50 more of them—who failed to complete the form, it would result still in only about 5  per cent of the overall number of candidates who often run in council elections failing to submit this form. I would say 5 per cent seems pretty consistent with trialling a new system, with trying to get someone to do a new thing and with having a bureaucracy receive that new thing. I think about one in 20 really is not inconsistent with that.

What can we take away from all this? What do we have to learn? The vast majority of those who ran and were elected in local government have done the right thing: 95 per cent did the right thing. They have met the requirements of the act. They have completed their paperwork. The councils assisted them. ECSA assisted them. Everybody did the right thing 95 per cent of the time.

I am reliably informed that there were many applications to SACAT—the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal—for restoration to office. Even for those 5 per cent, we are looking at maybe one in 20 of them not getting their email in. As the Hon. Ms Centofanti pointed out, sometimes that can be difficult if you are in a regional area or the dog ate their homework.

I am really not sure, but I think it is entirely possible that one in 20 people might also get a restoration to office because something went wrong, which goes in line with exactly why SACAT would reinstate them, because it is in circumstances beyond their control. Contrary to the Hon. Mr Pangallo's assertions, the returns that we got back are actually pretty impressive, given the reality that local government is just that: it is local.

There are no major parties in local government. While some may have a political allegiance of one sort or another—that certainly exists as you are entitled to do and as, indeed, you must declare—it is highly unusual to see any party structures involved. It is highly unusual to see party structures, which often do things like make sure that forms are submitted on time and in an acceptable format. As the Hon. Mr Martin pointed out, having experience in doing this makes it all much less daunting. but for someone who is doing this for the first time, submitting a form and sending it to the Electoral Commission is a pretty big deal.

To put what has occurred into perspective, in this place and the other place combined, 5 per cent of those 69 people who were elected to the two places would be less than four people. It would be about 3½ people who failed to meet the requirements. In terms of what we might do here, I do not think we would see three people out of this measure to be some sort of undue influence, for us to have some sort of massive crisis meeting about it. It would be three people failed and we need to address that.

That said, it is not simply a mathematical problem. It is all very well and good to go and look at percentages; however, it is also a logistical, democratic and economic problem. Those three things are pretty critical. We cannot minimise the impact that failing to allow this bill to pass will have on communities with respect to those three things.

The failure to submit the form has left each individual liable for a fine up to $10,000. Previously, ECSA has prosecuted this. This is not simply a paperwork fine; this is here as very much a deterrent for candidates who fail to comply with the statutory compliance requirement around campaign donations. It is my understanding that this bill makes clear that returns must still be lodged so that candidates in the election who did not return their campaign donations may actually still be liable for some sort of penalty. It is not as if there are literally no consequences here, which may also be why so many people got their applications into SACAT.

While this suggests there is a certain penalty in place for failing to do something, which I think we all regard as pretty important, it does provide deterrence, but it failed here. Without speculating at length as to why, it underlines the extraordinary nature of the need for this bill, or at the very least underlines that there cannot be serious consideration that there was some sort of mass intent behind what has occurred on behalf of any elected persons in local government or otherwise. There is no mass conspiracy with everybody going, 'You know what, I would love to incur a $10,000 fine because I don't want to declare that some other government of some other nation has sponsored my campaign.' I really do not think that is what we are looking at here.

One in 20 people failing to do something, in the first election where that is put into place, is really consistent with a stuff-up, consistent with a new system and is not somehow some wider thing we need to look at for some international government influence. I guess what I am saying, in short, is what occurred seems to suggest confusion, not intent. I am reliably informed that ECSA sent a reminder letter of failure to comply to many more candidates than the 40 or so who failed to submit their forms, which it is legislatively required to send, and apparently that prompted quite a few returns. Again, it goes back to the fact that there might have been confusion, not intent.

It certainly further suggests that there was confusion centred around the submission of the forms and where they were to be submitted, which is consistent with the fact that we had a legislative change around that not that long ago. This is all very likely a significant oversight, given changes previously made, and possibly because ECSA may be familiar with receiving such forms or notices only when there is a failure to comply. Obviously, the Electoral Commission are sitting there and receiving 1,258-odd emails, and they might be sifting through those on the basis that they came after the stress of doing a state and a federal election in the same year and same time period.

In an economic sense the expense of conducting or reconducting, if you will, a significant number of supplementary elections will incur a significant cost, and the cost will likely exceed any level of fine we will impose. This cost will exceed any level of fine imposed if one considers the amount of time that will doubtlessly be involved in also delaying council business to conduct the elections.

More than any of that, it is worth noting, regardless of legislative requirements, our community has cast its vote. It has cast its will in regard to elections already conducted. There is a need in my view to respect those votes as cast by the community. That has more weight, also in my view, given the voluntary nature of voting, which does occur in local government. If you wanted to cast your vote, you went out there and did it. If your candidate got elected, you will be pretty proud of that. If they subsequently submit a form and they did not receive any donations, you will be pretty proud of that and happy with that.

Furthermore, I believe, while a matter of happenstance, there were a significant number of elections which occurred last year. There cannot be any such thing, really, as too much democracy. As I am sure the Hon. Mr Simms from the Greens would agree, we do well in this place to seek to respect the matter that the opinion of many outside of this place is that they have had their say.

In my conversations with the local government sector and indeed with those who voted in local government elections, I believe this is the tenor of their expectations too. This bill will provide a quite simple solution, which will prevent the additional costs that will doubtlessly occur through supplementary elections and delays in important local government business.

All of that said, we must acknowledge there is a high importance, which must be recognised, in lodging campaign donation returns. There will be a requirement, even in the amendments on this bill, to lodge returns within 10 days of the commencement of the amendments we are going to put in place. We should not see this bill as some sort of encouragement to see the requirement to lodge returns as administrative or otherwise. Making campaign donations known and accessible is critical in transparency and accountability. It ensures, for a lot of very good reasons, a level of trust in our democracy at all levels, including when we have elections at state and federal level.

It should have been done. It should have been received by the Electoral Commission without a problem and reminders should have been effective in ensuring that that was the case. However, it is worth considering that, prior to the changes made to the act, this never happened in the history of the Local Government (Elections) Act—it never happened before—so we made changes and as a result we have to come along and amend certain things to make sure that no-one is disenfranchised by that. There is nothing suspicious about that; there is nothing more than chaos, really, at play here. I agree with the statement of the LGA president, Mayor Dean Johnson, when he said that:

While the LGA accepts that individual elected officials bear personal responsibility for complying with their campaign reporting obligations, it appears the cost and consequence of not submitting paperwork on time is utterly unreasonable.

He is correct about that: it is utterly unreasonable. Furthermore, in terms of longer term legislative change, I note that the minister responsible has made some reference to a review of all aspects of local government elections, and what has occurred here in practice will be considered as part of that.

Hopefully, we may consider what measures are best to take to make sure that we never have to do this again and it will also be simply a once-off measure for all involved and, as I am certain many members in this place look forward to with the reporting of Legislative Council returns, we can look forward to the Electoral Commissioner's review of the local government elections in addition to this review. I support the bill.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (16:17): I rise to support the bill. This bill will deal with the situation that has arisen where vacancies have been created for 45 council member positions, due to those members' failure to lodge their campaign donations returns within the statutory deadline. This is important to maintain the integrity of our democratic processes and reinstall the decisions made by the people in our communities via the ballot box.

As a former elected councillor, I understand the importance of maintaining confidence in our council decision-making processes. The bill makes it clear that any decisions made by councils while these elected members were stood down are not invalid. This bill removes any uncertainty in this regard. This bill also reinforces the requirement to be transparent and makes it clear that those 45 elected members who find themselves in this position still need to provide their returns. My understanding is that the bill gives them 10 days after the act is operational to do so.

This is a straightforward, commonsense piece of legislation. It is retrospective in nature, which is usually not a good thing, but in this case it is a simple solution to circumstances that would otherwise have had an unacceptable impact on local communities through additional costs that may occur through supplementary elections or potential delays in important council business. In other words, the bill will ensure that the democratic will of our community is respected without the cost associated with supplementary elections.

We all know the costs associated with supplementary elections could be better spent on a number of other local community priorities. The old days of the three: rates, rubbish and the like, is a thing of the past. Councils are actually involved in every aspect of one's life in the community. They support local sports clubs and community centres and are involved in new developments. They are also involved in libraries, swimming pools, local traffic management and health-related services. All these issues affect our daily lives and it is much more important that money is spent in those areas.

Finally, it is also very important to emphasise that this bill does not remove the obligation for all candidates to appropriately declare their campaign donations. In regard to that, I would like to make the following points. These councillors and mayors were elected by the people of this country and given the trust to sit on councils that oversee billions of dollars of infrastructure, yet they could not fulfil a basic statutory responsibility. To me, that is very disappointing.

I know people who failed the first time they had run for election but who still got their required declarations in on time. I also know some of these councillors who did not get their forms in on time were told by other councillors, and in some cases the administration, to get their statutory obligations fulfilled. Many of them just ignored it. Hopefully, these councillors will sit and have a bit of reflection on their actions. When speaking to people in the electorate, some of them are scratching their heads wondering what on earth has happened and why these people seek to obtain such office but cannot fulfil a basic statutory obligation.

I would like to congratulate Minister Brock, Minister for Local Government, for his strong and decisive actions to circumvent the potential turmoil and expense that could have occurred in local government. I support the bill, and hopefully this exercise will ensure that future councillors will fulfil their obligations in accordance with the act.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (16:22): I thank honourable members who contributed, the Hon. Ms Centofanti, the Hon. Mr Simms, the Hon, Mr Pangallo, the Hon. Mr Martin, the Hon. Mr Hanson and the Hon. Mr Wortley, for their contribution on the second reading and look forward to the committee stage and having this matter resolved as effectively as possible.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: If it assists you, Chair, I have a few general questions; some are actually more of a political nature so I can start with those first for you, Attorney. My first question relates to the point that was raised by the Hon. Mr Pangallo and the Hon. Mr Wortley in their contributions around retrospectivity. I am interested if the Attorney-General is concerned that this bill may set a precedent in terms of other retrospective legislation and how he intends to manage that.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. I certainly do not have a concern about that in relation to this bill. I think we all take each bill on its merits. What this seeks to do and in order for the effect that this bill seeks, it necessarily needs to be, but I know the hesitancy which many quite rightfully approach anything that takes us back in time effectively to regularise behaviour in the past and the hesitancy with which many of us look to those things. So, no, I do not think this creates a precedent, but it is, if we are to give the effect to this bill that is proposed, needed on this occasion.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I understand the minister is planning a review of the recent council elections and the broader Local Government Act. Can the minister advise the chamber on what the process will be in terms of undertaking that review, and what mechanisms members of parliament will have to have input?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am aware that the Electoral Commissioner, as is a matter of course, will do a review of the recent local government elections and processes around there, and no doubt this will likely be a part of that. I am also advised that the Minister for Local Government, through the Office of Local Government and the LGA, will also be conducting a review to run concurrently.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: With respect to the Attorney, I am aware of that. My question was: what mechanisms will be available to members of parliament to have input? Is the government intending to bring legislation to the parliament for us to deal with, addressing the outcome of such a review?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That probably would be premature for me to foreshadow, any possible legislation, but in the event that there are recommendations from one or both of the reviews that necessitate legislative change, that will be something that we will—as we are now—scrutinise at the time.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Is the minister aware of how many council candidates or councillors have been excluded in the past for failure to comply with the act in terms of submitting paperwork?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that since the late 1990s, when the current system and the act that we have was brought in prior to this election, no councillor or mayor has fallen foul of these provisions.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Can I ask the Attorney: why did the government not consider the countback provisions?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the countback provisions may have been able to be used in some instances but certainly not in all instances, particularly mayoral elections or any elections where there was an uncontested election, so there would have been a requirement for further supplementary elections regardless.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Does this legislation now render the countback measures in the bill redundant?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is no, this does not render any provisions that are currently in the Local Government Act in relation to that—it does not interfere with those going into the future. It just does what this does in relation to those candidates who did not get their forms in on time to extend the deadline for that. It does not in any way on an ongoing basis change provisions in the Local Government Act.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Just to answer something that the Hon. Justin Hanson raised in relation to party affiliations: I do not know the identities of these 45 councillors, they have never been made public, apart from some mayors, so I cannot look them up without having to look up 1,280. Can I ask the Attorney-General: did the government get Crown advice about the appeals to SACAT and the prospect of whether they would succeed or fail?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, there is no advice that I am aware of, and I certainly have not sought advice in relation to the merits of individual appeals. That would be up to individual members who are before the SACAT. What I am aware of, and can inform the honourable member of, is as of maybe two to three weeks ago there were, I think, somewhere in the high thirties, 37 or 39 people out of the number that I understood was about 45 who had been affected by this, councillors or mayors.

Somewhere in the high thirties had lodged appeals, but I am not aware of the relative merits of each case or what the likelihood of any single member's success for a SACAT application would be, and I do not think there is probably any way the Crown could advise on such a thing before actual hearings over days and days had taken place for each of those individuals and all the evidence had been put forward and considered.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Just for its own benefit, did the government make inquiries of these 45-odd candidates to assess what had happened, regardless of what was going to happen at SACAT or here? Has there been a review, perhaps, by engaging with these candidates to find out what happened?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is no, the government has not gone to individual candidates and sought to, I guess, do the things that would not necessarily be done at the SACAT, but certainly, as I foreshadowed, I suspect that a number of those candidates who have been affected by this no doubt will contribute to that review that is occurring, and I think that will be an important thing to do to understand how processes can be improved in the future.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: When these councillors and mayors take up their positions again once this legislation is assented to, will they receive any payments that were due to them while they have been suspended?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the bill clarifies that decisions and allowances for the period of suspension will apply as that is the most administratively straightforward way to deal with it.

Clause passed.

Remaining clause (2) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (16:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.