Bills

Local Government (Elections) (Display and Publication of Valid Nominations) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 March 2024.)

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (20:06): I find myself in an unusual situation, because it is not often that the Hon. Sarah Game and I agree on an issue in this parliament, but I do have some sympathy for the argument that she has advanced here in relation to candidates displaying their nominations on council buildings. As I alluded to previously, members would be aware I was a former member of the city council.

When I stood for council it was commonplace for members standing for office, when they lodged their nomination, to have it displayed at the Town Hall. The benefit of that was that it gave members a sense of which wards were going to be contested, and gave members of the community who were planning on standing for council a bit of information about who might be running where. I have never seen that as being a problem in our democracy.

Under the previous Liberal government, there were some significant reforms of the Local Government Act. The Greens engaged constructively with the government around that and supported those reforms, but one of the changes that the Liberal government made was to get rid of that provision and to instead keep that information private, so that it was not clear who had nominated until after the nominations had closed. As a result, in the recent council elections we actually saw a number of wards, particularly in regional areas, that were simply not contested, whilst you then had contested elections or, in some areas, seats that could not be filled. To me, that does not seem like a very sensible way for our democracy to work.

If we have numerous good people who want to put themselves forward for office, surely they should get the information on who is standing where so that they can make an informed decision. So I do have some sympathy for the argument that the Hon. Sarah Game has made.

The Greens are inclined to support this bill, but if there are issues that arise in the context of the debate, if there is a cuckoo that is thrown into the nest somewhere along the line, then I will certainly revisit our position, and our view will be informed by the debate. But in principle I am inclined to support the honourable member's proposal.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD (20:09): I will be very brief in my commentary around the support of this bill. The Hon. Rob Simms and others have ventilated the issues that came out of 2022 in the sense that most especially in regional areas we had a number of vacant councillor positions and a number of vacant mayoral races as well. That was simply for the fact that people did not know that no-one had actually put their hand up.

Of course, there was discussion around ward jumping and those types of things previous to 2022, but I think it is a worse situation for us to then have to try to scramble and find other people to fill these vacant councillor positions and, more importantly, the vacant mayoral positions in regional councils. Even down in my patch around Kingston and Robe they had to do that to be able to find someone who was willing to put their hand up.

I think that what the honourable member is attempting to do here will solve that. I am sure that was something that would have come down the line in a raft of reforms leading into 2026, either from the Liberal opposition or from the government, because it was certainly on our radar and I am sure it was on other radars as well.

I think this is sensible. As I said, I will be very brief in my comments. I support it. It is an unintended consequence of the reforms that came out of 2021 into 2022, and I think it is a good move. I support the bill.

The Hon. M. EL DANNAWI (20:11): I rise to speak briefly on behalf of the government. The government wants to see as many people as possible voting in the local government elections. We also recognise the value and importance of having a diverse group of high-quality candidates for people to be able to vote for. To this end, the government is currently considering a number of reforms ahead of the 2026 elections to support and strengthen local democracy and increase participation. We are developing these reforms in consultation with views of the sector, the community at large and important stakeholders such as the Electoral Commissioner.

The change proposed here by the Hon. Sarah Game is one that has been raised with the government and is under active consideration for possible adoption in this suite of reforms. Following the 2022 local government elections, some councils reported that not publishing nominations at council offices deterred some potential candidates. It was argued that some people may have nominated had they been made aware of a shortfall in candidates. This may have resulted in a higher number of high-quality candidates for voters to choose from.

The government's consultation on local government reforms has also included a YourSAy survey on possible changes, including the one being discussed here today. The government recognises the Hon. Sarah Game's interest in this matter and is willing to work together where possible to lift participation. However, the government is also keenly anticipating the Electoral Commissioner's periodic review of the 2022 local government elections. It would be premature to adopt one single local government election reform or finalise the government's consideration for reform in the absence of this report and the Electoral Commissioner's highly valuable insights.

Once the commissioner's review has been received the state government intends to move swiftly to release a council election reform package. Should some of these reforms require legislative amendment the government will return to parliament with a complete and holistic reform package and work with all members to achieve it. In the government's view the parliament's time would be most effectively used by considering a reform in this manner as a single package of possible changes.

The government does not oppose this bill progressing but reserves its right to further consider it and form a final view between the houses, pending further deliberation and consideration of the review from the Electoral Commissioner.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (20:14): I rise to indicate my in-principle support for the honourable member's proposal. In doing so, I echo the sentiments expressed particularly by the Hon. Robert Simms. If there are any cuckoo unintended consequences, then I am sure we will deal with those in due course. The member has already proposed the bill and, again, if there are any unintended consequences of that then surely we will have time to address those during any review that the government proposes.

So on that basis, given the sentiment of this chamber, it is only appropriate that the bill progress. If there are unintended consequences, cuckoo or otherwise, then we can deal with them as part of that complete and holistic reform that the Hon. Ms El Dannawi refers to in her contribution. With those words, I indicate my support for the bill.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (20:15): I thank my fellow members for providing their views on this bill. As mentioned, when this bill was first introduced, and as is clear from the legislation tabled, this bill is about better outcomes for communities, far more transparent local government representation and improved quality of candidates. I believe it is important for ratepayers to know who are seeking to represent them, and this bill would require councils to be more open with the community throughout the nomination and voting process.

As it stands, under the South Australian local government system the public cannot easily scrutinise nominations for council elections until after the candidate nomination period has closed. Allowing the community easy access to nominee information in turn allows for greater public scrutiny and potentially better quality nominations.

If, for example, a community has seen the nomination deck stacked a particular way, it allows time for others to nominate and at least give voting locals a chance to choose. Also, it would help councils to avoid the ridiculous, not to mention costly, situation we saw after the 2022 LGA elections when eight South Australian councils were forced back to the polls at taxpayer expense after failing to receive enough councillor and/or mayoral nominations.

In addition, this bill gives community members a chance to take action if political movements attempt to take over councils. We have seen the steady rise of Greens candidates infiltrating councils and pushing woke policies that are completely out of step with community sentiment. Consequently, decisions are made that fail to represent the majority of South Australians and, indeed, the majority of that particular council's residents. These ill-informed decisions include removing traditional prayers from council meetings, cancelling Australia Day ceremonies and hosting drag queen story time sessions.

We have seen enough of people pushing their own agendas at local government level. This trend must be halted and my bill serves to halt that momentum. I acknowledge that, as part of a review of the 2022 elections, the government is looking at a suite of its own reforms regarding local government elections and that the government is waiting on a report from the Electoral Commission. This particular reform may form part of that package; however, given I introduced this bill back in June, I feel it is appropriate to now call it to a vote.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The honourable member had me at hello, and then lost me when she started talking about the rationale for the bill. I am keen to understand how what has been proposed actually tackles the issues that the honourable member has talked about in her summing-up remarks, because I do not really see the nexus between the two.

The Hon. S.L. GAME: The bill is really just seeking that the local community is aware of the individual who would be standing for nomination so that other members of the community might want to nominate to represent alternative views if they saw fit.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just to clarify then, if someone is voting to get rid of the Lord's Prayer, someone who may want to maintain the Lord's Prayer may say, 'I am going to have a crack at that too, and level the playing field.' Is that effectively what the member is saying?

The Hon. S.L. GAME: Yes, that is effectively what I am saying.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: On what basis would a person nominate for a council position thinking that they are trying to reinstitute the Lord's Prayer, not knowing what the candidate who is running in a particular ward wants to do about the Lord's Prayer? How does this actually help that?

The Hon. S.L. GAME: The bill is simply trying to ensure that the local community is aware of the individual who might be running for local government, and if that individual has strong particular views it gives the opportunity for other members of the community to nominate themselves and increase competition.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Perhaps if we could use an example closer to home which we may all be familiar with: if you had somebody who was strongly against abortion, for instance, and they were well known in the community and they were running for that particular position, and then they had to go through that process, then somebody who sat on the other side of that equation might be minded to also run, I suppose in contrast to the person who is running who has a view that is anti to theirs in relation—I am not speaking about anyone in particular, of course, the Hon. Mr Hunter, but I think we can all work this out. If certain individuals were to run and they were to have particular views, it may be apparent to all of us what those views are and someone may choose to run counter to that. Is that effectively what we are saying?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Just to tease it out a little bit better, the issue really for me, at least, is that essentially you do not know who is running and what they stand for in council elections. That is why there is such a low turnout for votes, because we do not know who this person is that is running. You do not know if they are a member of a political party, although they should declare it, or do they have a particular belief or not, because they do not tell you about that before they get elected.

So how on earth would you know that this candidate has this agenda to make compulsory drag queen story time, for example, unless they have been on council previously and have agitated that? I just do not see the nexus between the provision in this bill and the things the Hon. Sarah Game said she thinks it will fix. I do not think it is going to fix any of those things.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: When I gave my second reading speech I did indicate that if there was a cuckoo in the nest I would change my position. Well, I think one has been thrown in because I do not find the rationale for the bill compelling. If the honourable member is seeking to somehow provide more information to electors about their political identities, this is not going to do it, so I am sort of persuaded that perhaps the government review gives a better opportunity to look at the issues that the honourable member has raised. I just do not feel comfortable supporting the bill on the basis of the information we have so far. I am just concerned that it is not quite going to achieve the honourable member's objectives.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Is there anything else perhaps the mover can add that will assist us in the deliberations, given that we have all said in principle that we support the principle—until, of course, it came to the summing-up which perhaps the member should not have given? Is there anything she can add to that, or perhaps clarify, that will help sway us in terms of maintaining the support that we have already signalled, without flip-flopping in the chamber?

The Hon. S.L. GAME: I think that this debate shows exactly why we need this bill, because increasing transparency and having the local community aware as much as possible about who might be nominating for local government, is exactly the point. Some members here disagreed with some of my sentiments and statements and that is their entitlement. It would be really disappointing, I am sure, if a member was to nominate themselves for local council and perhaps had these sentiments and they were not aware of them.

They might have run themselves or put somebody else up to have greater competition and representation of that local community. All I am saying is that the community has a right to know who is running and if that person has had strong views, that might empower somebody else and that community to say, 'Hang on, I want to run and represent an alternative viewpoint because I disagree with those views.'

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Would this bill not also present an opportunity for rural and regional communities, who may not have great volumes of people standing for elections? That would then perhaps encourage others to put forward their name for election, if they were to see that there was a lack of candidates.

The Hon. S.L. GAME: That is exactly it: increasing competition, making sure we do not have a lack of nominations. That was also mentioned in the summing-up speech that I gave.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am afraid I am not persuaded, and I am very comforted by the government's position of reserving our position and considering it in terms of the recommendations that will come forward from the Electoral Commissioner.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: In this case, I think we are probably getting lost in the nest of the cuckoo in terms of this. In the summing-up speech, the honourable member mentioned that it could be that there would be opposing views on these things, but I think ultimately we are talking about the fact that we have had the consequence of vacant council and mayoral positions because no-one knew whether someone had nominated or not. Irrespective of that, I think that is ultimately the intent of the bill, and that is why I am supporting it.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am happy to iron out the cuckoos in the nest between the houses if that is what it takes. In terms of the underlying sentiment of the bill, as I have said, I agree in principle. I may not agree necessarily with the wrapping up, but I certainly agree. The bottom line is: regardless of whether we agree or not, there are different views in the community. Just because somebody does not like the Lord's Prayer and somebody else does, I do not think that is a good reason, a valid reason, not to back the bill in terms of its underlying premise and principle. If there are those issues that need to be teased out and ironed out, then I am happy to deal with them between the chambers. On that basis, I support the bill.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: To add a little bit of further detail, one of the things that is at the back of my mind that has not been mentioned tonight is that I am cognisant of the fact that the Hon. Mr Pangallo has also introduced a bill dealing with local government matters, so we are potentially dealing with a whole range of reforms—

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Simms, we are only dealing with this bill. We are not dealing with another bill or any hypotheticals.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Yes, I understand that, Chair.

The CHAIR: Let's just stay with this bill.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I understand that, but my point is that there is the potential to start having individual private members' bills that are amending every element of the Local Government Act. It may make more sense to simply have the government's review roll out and deal with them in a holistic way. I am open to being persuaded, but at the moment I think the government's argument is a bit more compelling given the broader suite of issues that the Hon. Sarah Game is seeking to address through this bill.

Clause passed.

Remaining clause (2) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.L. GAME (20:28): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.