Bills

Local Government (Elections) (Australian Citizen and Compulsory Voting) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 November 2024.)

The Hon. J.S. LEE (17:26): I rise today to speak on the Local Government (Elections) (Australian Citizen and Compulsory Voting) Amendment Bill 2024. I thank the Hon. Frank Pangallo for bringing this bill to the chamber and for his clear commitment to strengthening the democratic processes that we hold so dear in this place.

This bill makes two key changes to the Local Government (Elections) Act to align the eligibility and voting requirements of local council elections in South Australia with federal and state elections. The bill would amend the enrolment criteria so that all natural persons must be Australian citizens to be eligible to vote in a South Australian local government election. I understand the honourable member intends for this change to protect local government elections from so-called branch stacking or actively recruiting non-citizens, such as international students, to become politically active in electorates where they only live temporarily.

I believe that revisiting the enrolment criteria has its merits, particularly given the widely publicised legal battle surrounding the 2022 Adelaide City Council Central Ward election. It is very disturbing that the District Court has now ruled that illegal practices did impact the 2022 Adelaide City Council election results and that there were a number of instances where ballot papers were handled or not filled by the intended voters.

While I can certainly see the logic in requiring that residents and ratepayers must be Australian citizens to vote in local government elections, I am concerned, however, that permanent residents will be disenfranchised by this bill. While permanent residents do not have to make a pledge of commitment and pledge their loyalty to Australia like naturalised citizens, especially those who have been here for perhaps 10, 20, 30 or 40 years, they do have a much stronger connection with Australia than temporary visa holders, such as international students.

I know of many permanent residents who have lived in Australia for many years, even decades, who for a range of reasons do not apply for Australian citizenship. However, they are strongly attached to their local communities, and some of them have children and grandchildren who were born in Australia and are Australian citizens. Many permanent residents are business owners and landlords who contribute greatly to the economy and community in their local council areas and who should arguably have a say in the decisions and policies of local government.

Turning now to the second change that is proposed by this bill, I believe that it is reasonable and logical for voting in local government elections to be compulsory just as it is at the state and federal level. Historically, only one-third of voters choose to vote in their local council elections, and councils also struggle to find enough diverse candidates willing to stand for election.

At the 2022 local government elections, there were 24 wards or areas across the state where all the candidates who nominated were elected unopposed. Seven of these required supplementary elections, as there were not enough candidates to fill all the vacant positions. I am incredibly proud as an Australian that we have compulsory voting at the state and federal level, encouraging all of our citizens to actively participate and engage in our democracy and ensuring that government must consider the whole electorate in decision-making. Time and again in countries overseas we see money and effort go into pleading with citizens just to go out and vote, let alone actually engaging voters about policies and key issues.

Over the past 20 years, the local government sector has been making increasingly large investments in promoting elections both to encourage nominations and to increase voter turnout. Despite these investments, engagement with councils at election times has remained at consistently low rates. I understand that voting in local government elections is already compulsory in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. It makes perfect sense that compulsory voting should be extended to the local government tier as well to encourage all voters to engage with the local council, which is responsible for the planning, maintenance, land care, community facilities and services that impact our daily lives.

I would hope that such a change would encourage increased voter turnout and increase our democracy and interest in standing for election at the local level to enhance the integrity of our democratic system. I thank the honourable member once again for bringing this bill to the chamber for our consideration.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:32): I rise to speak on the bill on behalf of the Greens and indicate that the Greens will be supporting this bill's passage through the upper house, albeit with a few reservations, and I will talk a little bit about those. The Hon. Jing Lee has articulated very clearly, I think, the two main elements of this bill. The first relates to a tightening of eligibility requirements for voting in council elections. Currently, residents are given the opportunity to vote. What the Hon. Frank Pangallo is proposing is that that franchise be restricted to citizens, in line with the voting that we see in state and federal elections. Additionally, the honourable member through this bill is supporting compulsory voting, again bringing council elections in line with state and federal elections.

On the issue of the voter roll and restricting the franchise to citizens, I do have some concerns with what the honourable member is proposing. Those concerns mirror those expressed by the Hon. Jing Lee; that is, we do not want to disenfranchise long-term members of the community, people who are part of our council communities who may not necessarily be formal citizens but who want a stake in the future of their local government. Indeed, many state jurisdictions in Australia extend the opportunity to vote to permanent residents.

I guess where South Australia is a little bit different, though, is that we do not have the same requirements in terms of permanent residency status for voting in council elections, so people can be living in a particular council precinct for a very short time and then get themselves on the roll and exercise a vote.

I can see the potential under that system for things to go awry, and so it is on that basis that the Greens will support this, recognising that of course if it passes this house there will be an opportunity to work with the government and the Hon. Frank Pangallo to address some of the implementation issues. Indeed, it would be our hope that the government, in contemplating this, will look very closely at what happens in other jurisdictions.

I want to also talk a little bit about the Greens' position on compulsory voting in council elections. I must say I am a late convert to this debate, having been elected as a city councillor more than 10 years ago now. One of the things I thought was attractive about local government was the fact that you had Independents, community-minded people who could be elected outside of the political party banner. I think that is a good feature of our democratic system.

What we know, however, is that people can still be members of political parties, and that may not necessarily be known to the voter when they cast their vote. This became a real issue in the Adelaide City Council elections in 2018, when you saw a group of Liberals under the Team Adelaide banner, who stood under the leadership of failed preselection candidate Houssam Abiad and failed Liberal Party candidate Alex Hyde, now party director, members of the Liberal Party who put themselves forward as just a group that were working closely together but were actually operating as a factional group, a secret faction.

They were elected to city council and then denied that they were members of a faction but voted as a factional group on most issues. This has been well documented in the media. That does concern me. I think voters have a right to know what political parties these candidates are connected to. That is one of the reasons why the Greens advocated strongly during the last local government elections to tighten the disclosure regime around political party membership so that voters got that information before they exercised their vote, rather than after the vote.

The problem is, though, of course that because of the optional voting system these loose factional groups are able to be formed, and the connection may not be transparent to voters. One of the benefits of compulsory voting is that people may well run under a political party banner and therefore that connection is going to be more transparent to voters.

We also know, of course, that we suffer from a very low turnout in council elections. In the last local government elections held in South Australia, in November 2022, approximately 400,000 people participated. That is a turnout of around 32 per cent of the eligible voting population. There is a bit of a difference between metro and country turnout, but it is not huge. In metropolitan areas, the turnout is generally higher compared to country areas. For example, in the City of Adelaide the turnout was around 40 per cent. Some country areas have lower participation rates, such as the District Council of Ceduna, which saw turnout of about 25 per cent.

I guess the risk when you have such low turnout is that some of these loose factional groups can wield disproportionate influence over a particular council, as we saw with the failed Team Adelaide faction led by councillors Abiad and Hyde of the Liberal Party. It is my hope that if we see this reform we might be able to safeguard councils against those sorts of antics in the future. I am open to this on that basis.

I also want to touch on one of the issues that the Hon. Jing Lee mentioned, which is the ongoing legal matter that is unfolding in Adelaide City Council. I saw that the Lord Mayor shared a statement on her social media account from the CEO of the City of Adelaide, and I thought it might be useful to just read that statement into Hansard because I suspect some other members may reflect on what's going on with the city council, and I think it is useful to get this information on the public record. The CEO advised the Adelaide City Council—I have a transcript of his remarks on 11 March. He said:

…on Friday the seventh of March, the Court of Disputed Returns delivered judgment in the matter of Hyde, ECSA and Li.

That matter concerned a petition filed in the court by Mr Alexander Hyde contesting the validity of the 2022 periodic election, which resulted in the election of four councillors to represent council's central ward.

In upholding the petition in part, the court found that the election was affected by illegal practices and that those illegal practices affected the outcome of the election.

At the request of counsel for Mr Hyde, the court has adjourned the matter to 4 April 2025 to allow time for the parties to make submissions regarding what orders the courts should make as a result of its judgment.

As the court has not yet made any orders, each of the central ward councillors continue to hold office as members of council in accordance with the terms of the Local Government Act.

Those councillors are entitled to attend council meetings, committee meetings and information and briefing sessions in the ordinary way unless and until the court orders otherwise.

Importantly, section 40 of the Local Government Act makes it clear that there is no risk to the validity or lawfulness of any of the decisions of council since the 2022 periodic elections arising from the findings of the court, including at tonight's council meeting. Any council decision made prior to the court's orders taking effect will remain valid even after the court makes orders finalising the proceedings.

I do think that's an important statement to put on the public record because I know there is a significant concern around the legitimacy of the council. The CEO makes clear the implications of the court's findings thus far. In closing, the Greens are supportive of this bill moving through to the next stage. We do have some reservations. It is our hope that those can be teased out through collaboration with the Hon. Frank Pangallo and the government. With that, I conclude my remarks.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (17:42): I rise to speak on behalf of the government in regard to this matter. Following the 2022 local government elections, the state government launched a comprehensive community consultation process which canvassed the opinions and suggestions about improving participation. A Local Government Participation and Elections Review discussion paper was then released and public consultation was conducted on that via YourSAy over a period of approximately five months. In total, nearly 8,000 people visited the review's YourSAy page. There were 92 submissions received and 406 surveys completed. The government has received these findings and is currently considering them.

The other important input into the consideration of potential change to local government elections is the Electoral Commissioner's periodic review of the 2022 local government elections. It is anticipated that this report will be published in coming weeks. That will provide the final necessary advice for the government, and indeed this place, to consider reform in any comprehensive way. The community would be best served by a parliament considering a single package of reforms ahead of the 2026 elections to ensure that any changes that are made are made with an effective wider framework.

The Hon. Frank Pangallo's bill seeks to require voters in local government elections to be Australian citizens and, indeed, to make voting in local government elections compulsory for all enrolled voters. The government recognises that there are respectable arguments on both sides of these proposals, and is willing to support the passage of the bill through this place to allow continued debate and discussion; however, the government will consider its final position on these proposals between the houses following consideration of the Electoral Commissioner's report. The government may return to parliament with an election improvement package of its own where these and indeed other related matters can be collectively considered by all members.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (17:44): I rise to speak briefly on the Hon. Frank Pangallo's Local Government (Elections) (Australian Citizen and Compulsory Voting) Amendment Bill. As outlined by the honourable member, this bill has two components, and initially I shall speak in support of the first component regarding voter eligibility. This bill seeks to align eligibility to vote in local government elections in South Australia with federal and state voting eligibility. As we know, non-citizens are unable to vote in federal and state elections, yet are permitted to vote in council elections in South Australia.

Decisions made by South Australia's 68 councils impact many facets of our everyday lives, including roads and path maintenance, plus a long list of other public infrastructure, housing and business approvals and the provision of various community services. CEOs and council staff make recommendations on all these matters, but it is elected members who are empowered to ultimately make decisions—decisions that require ratepayer dollars.

Those who vote in local government elections hold the power to influence and impact council elections, many of which have far-reaching consequences via who they elect every four years. Therefore, it is only fair that these people have a vested interest in their communities and are not in any way temporary residents. This component of the honourable member's bill helps reinforce the integrity of local government elections and subsequent decision-making and, as such, I support that principle.

The second component of the honourable member's bill is making voting in local government elections compulsory. I do not support this principle, chiefly because the notion of compulsory democracy is an oxymoron. It turns the basic principle of democratic government on its head. In addition, the idea that low voter turnout at any election somehow reflects poorly on eligible voters is a flawed assumption. In fact, not voting sends a much clearer and louder message than having disengaged voters simply ticking off their names for the sake of avoiding fines. Choosing not to vote is effectively saying 'none of the above deserve my vote'—a powerful form of political expression.

The message is this: show me a candidate with ideas worth supporting and I will vote for them. Compulsory voting has other downsides. For many people forced to vote it reduces political contest to a least worst option exercise, and it means elections are decided by disengaged voters. At other levels of government, this makes candidates more likely to promise unnecessary spending to appeal to this group at the expense of sensible, financially responsible policy. In short, disengaged voters forced against their will to vote hold a disproportionately significant influence. Remember, levels of disengagement can only truly be measured in voluntary participation elections.

My message—in not supporting compulsory voting at the local government level and, by extension, not supporting that aspect of the honourable member's bill—is that it remains the responsibility of candidates to provide policies that do engage eligible voters. Earn their vote; do not force people to vote for you. I support the truly democratic principle of voluntary voting at the local government level.

Instead of trying to introduce compulsory voting at council elections, I believe we may need to focus on the functionality and efficiency of local government. We would do this by better scrutinising discretionary spending decisions at the local government level and also by ensuring that elected members are able to speak up and speak on behalf of their constituents without the threat of action being taken against them for going against official council policy.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD (17:47): The bill before us today seeks to address two distinct issues: the eligibility for non-citizens to vote in local government elections and the introduction of compulsory voting at a local level. The opposition supports efforts to strengthen the integrity of our electoral system, and we agree that voting in local government elections should be consistent with state and federal elections reserved for Australian citizens. However, we do not support the push for compulsory voting in local council elections and we will be moving an amendment to strike out that provision, although I do thank the honourable member and his commitment to seeing the democratic process here upheld in South Australia at a local, state and federal level.

At both state and federal levels, Australian citizenship is a prerequisite for voting, yet under the Local Government (Elections) Act 1999 no such requirement exists for local government elections in South Australia. This anomaly has led to concerns about non-citizens influencing election outcomes, particularly in areas with large international student populations. The recent Adelaide City Council elections have exposed serious flaws in our system.

Following the 2022 Adelaide City Council election, the Electoral Commission of SA rejected 23 Adelaide City Council Central Ward ballots after it found they had not been returned by residents whose names were attached to the voting slips. The ballots came from four apartment buildings in the Adelaide City Council's Central Ward, where the vote harvesting scam targeting international students allegedly had taken place. The District Court later found that Councillor Jing Li was elected through illegal practices, including ballot harvesting. Judge Michael Burnett found, on the balance of probabilities, that more than 24 votes had been cast for Councillor Li where illegal practices had affected the result.

As former Councillor Alexander Hyde put it, 'This is a win for democracy but serious questions still linger.' Mr Hyde went on to say:

This judgement, among other things, means that a capital city election in Australia was affected through illegal activities…it has serious implications.

He is right. This case proves that ballot harvesting is not just a theoretical risk, it has happened and it has changed an election result. This finding, which is the first court of disputed returns case in almost half a century to be successful, is a damning indictment on the conduct in recent local government elections but also the conduct since.

Repeatedly in this chamber questions have been asked of the Attorney-General and consistently they have been ignored or handballed. Repeated questions have been asked of local government ministers in the other place and, again, consistently they have been ignored. It begets the question: why has the state Labor Party not had any interest in these allegations of voter fraud and corruption in our capital city council? Why have they not acted to safeguard the integrity of our electoral system? Why have they not investigated the voter manipulation by foreign nationals in Australia? Why have they not investigated allegations heard in court that the Chinese consulate in Adelaide was approached to assist a domestic election in Australia?

The answer to me is clear: the Adelaide City councillor at the centre of these illegal practices, Mr Jing Li, was a member of the Labor Party up until the time he ran for council. This is detailed on the Electoral Commissioner's website. Mr Li used to work for the Labor government in the Department of State Development, where he held an executive position under Rik Morris. Yes, that is right, the same Rik Morris who is the chief executive of the Premier's Delivery Unit, the right-hand man of Peter Malinauskas, who is paid by the taxpayer over $386,000 per year.

I have with me documents released under freedom of information. They contain emails between Rik Morris and Jing Li relating to his Adelaide City Council election. This details the closeness of Mr Li to Labor's most senior people. It is not surprising then that there were also allegations of Jing Li offering to secure an attendance of the Premier himself at an event where one of his supporters was opening a new bar.

We also know that Jing Li had such influence in the South Australian Labor Party such as he held an event in support of his campaign with three—that is right, three—Labor cabinet ministers in on the invite, being the Minister for Police, the Minister for Correctional Services and the Minister for Tourism. Some Labor backbenchers in marginal seats would be lucky to see so many ministers turn out to support such events.

I think we have the answer as to why Labor did not want to look under the hood of the Adelaide City Council election—because it was a mess that was created which leads right back to them. The inference is readily available that the state Labor government buried its head in the sand because they did not want to take action against one of their own, nor did they want to uncover the seedy underbelly that some of their senior members were embroiled in.

The fruits of Labor's actions are easy to see. We have in the Adelaide City Council a Labor-dominated chamber. The Lord Mayor is a former Labor cabinet minister. We have two other Labor party members who sit in that chamber and deliberate on matters, and we now have the now former Labor Party member Jing Li. The Labor Party is not supporting this bill because they believe in it. They are not supporting it because they have concerns about the integrity of the elections otherwise they would have done so earlier. They are supporting it in the hope that this sordid political saga will just go away.

We have before us a mess that includes the use of foreign nationals to influence a local election in South Australia; allegations of a foreign power being enlisted to assist in this election; allegations of senior members of government being available to participate in activities on the verges of this scheme—all orchestrated by a member of the Labor Party who has enough pull internally to call upon the Premier's right-hand man and deploy cabinet ministers en masse to support his political goals.

So we have our answers: the Labor Party and the Labor government are up to their elbows in this mess and they should take responsibility for it and submit to a comprehensive investigation as to how far this rot goes within the government. By restricting voter rights to Australian citizens, we can close this loophole, this rot, to prevent further abuse and restore confidence in our democratic process. The case for restricting voter rights to Australian citizens is a strong one and the opposition supports this part of the bill.

The second aspect of this bill seeks to introduce compulsory voting in local government elections, bringing South Australia in line with four other states. Currently, only SA and Western Australia maintain the voluntary system. In the last local government elections in 2022, voter turnout sat at just 33 per cent. Last year, the Voice referendum, which was also voluntary in South Australia, saw similarly low participation rates. Low voter turnout raises legitimate concerns about democratic representation.

Critics argue that low engagement means a small, motivated minority can wield disproportionate influence, leading to poor governance outcomes. Others suggest that compulsory voting would force greater accountability on candidates, making elections more reflective of the broader community. However, there are significant issues with applying the compulsory voting model to local government elections. Unlike state and federal elections, which require in-person voting, South Australian council elections are conducted by postal ballot. This creates accessibility issues, particularly for regional and rural voters who often receive and return their ballots outside of voting deadlines.

Moreover, local government campaigns typically receive less media attention and much fewer resources, leading to lower levels of voter turnout. There is also the fundamental issue of choice. Many South Australians feel that compulsory voting is undemocratic, that the right to vote should also include the right to abstain.

While state and federal elections have compulsory attendance, no-one is forced to cast a formal vote, but in local government elections where candidates often have limited policy platforms and minimal public scrutiny, forcing people to participate risks increasing informal votes rather than genuine democratic engagement.

The bill introduced by the Hon. Frank Pangallo does represent two separate issues: one is that the restriction of voting rights for Australian citizens is a necessary reform that strengthens the integrity of our electoral system; the other is that the introduction of compulsory voting for local councils is a far more contentious proposal, one that many in the community oppose.

The opposition will move an amendment to this bill to remove the compulsory voting provision. We believe that forcing participation with low voter engagement and logistical challenges will not necessarily lead to better democratic outcomes. However, we recognise that this is an issue that the government would rather avoid debating. If this bill proceeds to the House of Assembly, it will force the government to take a position on the issue that is of significant interest to voters. Our focus remains on ensuring South Australians have a fair and transparent electoral system, one that protects the voter against manipulation while respecting the individual freedoms. I commend the bill to the council with our proposed amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (17:57): I would like to acknowledge the contributions of the Hon. Jing Lee, the Hon. Robert Simms, the Hon. Justin Hanson, the Hon. Sarah Game and the Hon. Ben Hood. I will note the local government experience of three of those members—the Hon. Justin Hanson, the Hon. Robert Simms and the Hon. Ben Hood—who understand what happens in local government. I appreciate their contributions in this debate.

I am disappointed and surprised that Liberal members in this place could not bring themselves to support compulsory voting as it applies in the federal and state sphere. Quite simply, it actually encourages integrity and transparency—that is what it is all about—and I cannot accept their reasoning, nor that of the Hon. Sarah Game.

It is important that we seek ways to boost community participation in local government elections. Thirty-two per cent turnouts are far too low considering the responsibilities, fiscal and in provision of services, council have today compared to previous decades. They are a bigger business with more staff and revenues to manage. There is no point in ratepayers whinging about their council decisions if they do not make the effort to go out on polling day and exercise their democratic right at the ballot box.

This is all about achieving efficient and responsible democracy in our community and I am sure this will eventuate—probably after my time in this place. Tasmania already also has implemented this measure and it has resulted in a significant increase in voter participation. I thank the members for the support of the eligibility-to-vote provision that all natural persons must be an Australian citizen when enrolling.

As has already been pointed out by members in their second reading speeches, this could not have been more timely, given the recent Court of Disputed Returns decision that there had been illegal practices with ballot papers in Central Ward of the 2022 Adelaide City Council elections and evidence that was given in the court that ballot papers were tampered with and were linked to foreign Chinese students who were eligible for the supplementary roll after only being in residence for 30 days or more. This was a disturbing precedent, but one which I had warned about in this chamber several times over the years I have been a member. This is an integrity measure and one that relates directly to our national security, a warning that had actually been issued by ASIO in one of its bulletins regarding foreign influences.

Prominent Adelaide developer Theo Maras called me to express his support, pointing out that he only has one vote in the City of Adelaide but makes far more significant contributions to the welfare and the economic situation of the city and the state than a group of foreign students. I congratulate former Adelaide City Council member Alex Hyde on his perseverance in taking the legal action which has seen the election of members declared void in that ward. As I said, it was unprecedented and it was coming. I was surprised that the Electoral Commission of South Australia was stridently opposed to that action.

This bill will protect local government elections from branch stacking or vote harvesting behaviours such as those we saw at the 2022 Adelaide City Council elections. Finally, I want to thank and pay tribute to a long-serving Naracoorte Lucindale councillor, Ken Grundy, who first alerted me to this issue in 2018, the year I was elected. It has been a long road, but I am gratified that this reform has been supported by the majority of members in this place.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Hood–1]—

Page 2, lines 4 and 5—Delete 'and Compulsory Voting'

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I wish to indicate that the Greens will not be supporting these amendments. I find them very curious amendments. If people are serious about trying to improve the integrity in our council elections, I would have thought that compulsory voting was a pretty effective way of doing that, so, no, the Greens will not be supportive of the amendments.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: Consistent with what is occurring, obviously the government's position, as stated in the speech that we put forward, was that we are supporting it in its current format and will not be supporting any amendments.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: I indicate that I will not be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will not be supporting the amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 5), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (18:05): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.