Bills

Statutes Amendment (Local Government Elections Review) Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (12:12): I rise to make some remarks about the Statutes Amendment (Local Government Elections Review) Bill 2025, which introduces a range of reforms to improve the integrity, transparency and accessibility of local government elections in South Australia. The bill responds to serious concerns raised during the 2022 council elections, including illegal voting in the City of Adelaide. It also reflects recommendations from the Electoral Commissioner's report and follows extensive consultation with councils and the community.

Importantly, the bill strengthens campaign finance transparency. It simplifies the donation disclosure process while increasing accountability. All candidates, whether new or incumbent, will follow the same rules, with donations over $500 to be disclosed within five days. A final summary return will be required after the election and noncompliance will result in suspension rather than triggering costly by-elections. This is a practical and fair improvement that gives voters clearer insight into who is funding campaigns.

The bill also introduces important changes around scrutineer conduct and candidate visibility. It empowers councils to host public meetings for candidates to improve voter engagement, which can be hosted virtually or in person. These meetings are required under the act, but councils can choose not to hold them, providing they explain that decision to their community. The bill seeks to restore public confidence by aligning local voting eligibility with state and federal standards, requiring all voters to be enrolled on the House of Assembly roll. I agree that these are practical steps that will help strengthen democratic engagement and improve the voter experience.

However, I also want to acknowledge two very important concerns raised by stakeholders: first, the timing of the Electoral Commissioner's report. The 2022 local government election report was not released until well into the current cycle, leaving limited time for councils to review, consult and implement reforms ahead of the next election in November 2026. The LGA has rightly suggested that future reports be required within a set timeframe, such as 14 months after each election, to allow for timely and meaningful reform. This would give councils the certainty they need to train staff, inform candidates and engage the public well in advance.

Secondly, I would like to reflect on the specific concerns raised by Ethan White, Deputy Mayor of the Town of Gawler, who wrote to me expressing his support for the bill's intent but also his very deep reservations about restricting voting rights to Australian citizens. His letter reminded me that local government is often the most accessible and inclusive level of democracy, where people from all walks of life and all cultural backgrounds—including permanent residents and international students—contribute meaningfully to civic life.

Many councils, especially in the CBD, rely on supplementary rolls that include non-citizen residents and property owners. In the City of Adelaide, for example, more than half of the voters are on the supplementary roll. I have direct interactions with many of these individuals. They may not be citizens but they pay rates, they run businesses, they employ staff, and they belong to sports or charitable organisations as well as clubs such as Rotary and Lions. They are part of the everyday life of their communities. In places like Chinatown or out in the Northern Adelaide Plains in towns like Virginia, I know permanent residents, business owners and farmers who have voted in local elections for years. Under this bill they will lose that right.

We must then ask the question: is citizenship the only measure of civic contribution? While proxy voting remains an option for non-natural entities, it is tightly restricted. The nominated proxy must be a designated officer of the entity or group, must already be enrolled on the House of Assembly roll, and cannot be voting elsewhere in the same election. These conditions make it difficult for many small business owners, especially family-run operations, to identify a suitable proxy.

For members of culturally and linguistically diverse communities, these limitations add yet another level of complexity. Many permanent residents, some of whom have lived here for decades, may struggle with written English or navigating formal nomination processes. Taking away their direct voting rights and asking them to navigate a complex proxy process risks silencing voices that are already under-represented in our democracy.

While the intention is to protect electoral integrity, we must be cautious not to unintentionally exclude those who are deeply embedded in our community and who are contributing greatly to building our inclusive society. This is not just a technical change; it is a cultural shift. It risks sending a message that only citizens count, even in the spaces where community connection matters most.

I do support the bill's passage, but I do so with a call for ongoing review and dialogue. We do not want to fix one problem and then create a different problem where permanent residents do not feel as valued or as respected as Australian citizens. We must ensure that our efforts to protect democracy do not inadvertently narrow its reach.

I want to indicate my support for the government's amendments, as I understand those amendments are largely technical in nature and are based on requests and consultation with ECSA, Adelaide City Council and the LGA. I would also like to indicate my support for some of the amendments proposed by the Hon. Robert Simms, specifically:

to include an option for local government members to opt in to use PAYG for allowances paid to local government members;

that the names of each nominee be published prior to the close of nominations; and

where candidates are pooling their campaign funds for the purpose of campaigning, they must disclose this and the disclosure must be made to the returning officer.

Those are the three specific amendments that I am ready to support. Sorry, the Hon. Robert Simms, I will be opposing the lower voting age amendment, which I already explained to you.

On this note, I also want to show my appreciation to the Hon. Robert Simms, because I believe that he has extensive knowledge and experience in local government governance structures and his proposed amendments are very sensible. He indicated to me also that the government are more likely to support those amendments as well. I will be considering the amendments moved by the opposition very closely during the committee stage. With those words, I commend the bill.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (12:20): I rise to speak on this bill. The bill will amend the Local Government Act 1999, the Local Government (Elections) Act 1999 as well as the City of Adelaide Act 1998 to make a range of improvements to local government elections and participation in councils. The bill is a culmination of a significant amount of public consultation both within the local government sector and, indeed, the broader South Australia community.

At the request of the former minister for local government, Geoff Brock, the Office of Local Government conducted a statewide consultation to give the community an opportunity to provide feedback on a series of ideas and suggestions about how communities can better engage with their local councils throughout a council term, and particularly, specifically to here, at election time. During this consultation period, 92 submissions were received directly, including submissions from 32 of South Australia's 68 councils and a sector-wide submission from the Local Government Association, as well as a further 406 surveys completed on YourSAy containing 54,000 individual comments—fantastic. There were exactly 54,000; is that not amazing?

The Local Government Association was consulted on the proposed reforms. The Office of Local Government has also undertaken officer-level discussion with the LGA on the reforms and the draft bill. The LGA is, I am told, 'principally supportive' of the proposals in the bill and looks forward to 'appropriate legislative change that improves the transparency, integrity and efficiency of local government elections', and who could not support that?

The most significant reform in the bill is to require all voters to be on the House of Assembly roll as a state elector. This will require all voters to be Australian citizens while simultaneously retaining the property franchise entitlements and ensuring the integrity of the election process. The amendment has been proposed in order to increase the integrity of our local government elections following feedback received from the local government sector and a review of voting irregularities at the 2022 periodic elections.

The proposed amendments are intended to provide greater assurance to our community that only those who are entitled to vote at local government elections exercise those rights. Recent findings by the Court of Disputed Returns in relation to the Central Ward of the City of Adelaide focused on activities relating to non-citizen voters exercising their entitlements as residents of an area. It appeared that these city residents were targeted both for enrolment and for the use of their ballot papers—how very naughty.

Ultimately, these legal practices resulted in the removal of four members of the City of Adelaide but also eroded the confidence that voters have in the integrity of these elections. As other speakers have already stated, this must be addressed. The bill therefore proposes that all voters in South Australian council elections must be enrolled in the House of Assembly roll for South Australia, as is already the case in state and federal elections. This is a change that reflects wider community expectations of who should vote in elections for all Australian governments, namely, of course, Australian citizens.

Councils will need to check that voters applying to enrol to exercise their property franchise entitlement, or in the City of Adelaide where property franchise holders are currently automatically enrolled, have nominated a person to vote who is, of course, on the House of Assembly roll. This will ensure that all people receiving ballot papers are Australian citizens, rather than relying on the returning officer—hopefully, not just one—to determine this based on a declaration on the ballot envelope when it is returned.

Another significant reform is the new system for the management of campaign donations returns. This new system is both significantly simpler for candidates to manage and places much greater emphasis on disclosure of gifts and donations during the election campaign to better inform voters.

Additionally, the bill requires councils to hold a public meeting to enable candidates to speak to voters, again, to maximise the opportunities for voters to know more about the people who want or propose to represent them. This proposal is in response to 84 per cent of submissions indicating agreement (45 per cent) and strong agreement on the YourSAy survey on whether greater efforts should be made to provide platforms, such as online meetings and question and answer sessions, for candidates to share their views or indeed their experiences.

While the bill allows councils not to hold these meetings if they decide this in the context of their caretaker policies, the principal member, that being the mayor, will also be required to certify the reasons why their council has made such a decision if they do so. This sets the expectation that these reasons, of course, must be genuine.

Given the importance of information about their candidates to voters, the government also intends to make a regulation that will require candidates to disclose if they have been the subject of an adverse finding from an independent integrity body, such as, for instance, the Behavioural Standards Panel, the Ombudsman or indeed, hopefully not, the ICAC. This will be the subject of further consultation with the sector prior to the new regulation being enacted. It is important that voters are aware if someone standing for council has previously breached behavioural or integrity standards in their role as a council member.

Other reforms in the bill to improve local government elections are:

requiring the Electoral Commissioner to publish numbers of nominations received as soon as practicable (e.g. not waiting until the close of nominations) to reduce insufficient nominations or uncontested elections—nominations being published as soon as they are received had 74 per cent agreement on the YourSAy survey: 32 per cent agreed and 42 per cent strongly agreed;

requiring councils to make a small allowance available to council members through reimbursement for publication of material associated with community engagement activities;

enabling a trial of pre-poll locations for voters to drop in and vote for a supplementary election held between 2026 to 2030 to establish whether the benefits of an additional voting method actually warrants its broader adoption;

introducing standards of conduct for scrutineers and offences with penalties for obstructing the exercising of electoral duties and prohibiting people and groups from misleading or deceiving electors in relation to how they should mark their ballot papers and/or exercise their vote in line with similar requirements which currently exist in the Electoral Act 1985; and

amending the regulation of advertising posters, commonly known of course as corflutes—how disgusting those things are—in local government elections to provide for consistency with state and federal elections as and indeed where it is possible.

The government also intends to amend the regulations to increase the availability of assisted (telephone) voting to all people with a disability. Situations where councils have interactions with the state government was also another matter that was looked at in this bill.

The state government has a responsibility to ensure that council elections are run with integrity and efficiency and to engage with the Electoral Commissioner of South Australia to make sure that happens accordingly. The legislation should support the unique characteristics of local elections, including the property franchise and the postal voting system, but also provide local elections with the same level of assurance and trust as state elections; hence the change to require that all people voting in their council be Australian citizens.

The Office of Local Government provides advice to the Minister for Local Government. This includes advice on the operation of the Local Government Act 1999 and indeed any related legislation. The Office of Local Government also consults with councils and provides policy and other advice on the constitution and operations of local government, particularly the legal framework for councils' operation.

The bill includes a number of measures to improve the efficient delivery of local government elections and the integrity of council elections. The bill will provide local elections with the same level of assurance and trust as state elections and give voters confidence that they are electing suitable representatives for their community.

A real challenge in the context of council elections is the ability for voters to understand who is running for council, what they stand for and even what kinds of people they are. In the context of the 2022 elections when 1,256 candidates stood for 184 contested positions, it can be difficult for information about candidates to reach voters. Voters are very dependent on the candidate profiles that are included in every ballot pack to help them make the important decision about who will represent them at the local government level for the next four years. This bill includes a requirement for councils to hold a meeting to enable candidates to speak to voters to maximise the opportunities that voters have to know more about the people who want to represent them.

Another critical matter for voters' information is the disclosure of campaign gifts and donations received by candidates. This bill includes significant changes to the current system for campaign donation returns and disclosures that will be simpler for candidates to manage and require more active disclosure. A system that is both easier to comply with and provides more information to voters when they need it most is a much-needed improvement and an important part of good elections.

Given the importance of information about candidates to voters, the government intends to make a regulation that will require candidates to disclose if they have been the subject of adverse findings by the Ombudsman, the ICAC or the standards panel. It is important that voters are aware if someone standing for council has previously breached integrity standards in their role as a council member. With that, I think we can move along with all agreeing with each other.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (12:31): I would like to thank all honourable members who have made a contribution to the debate on this bill: the Hon. Ben Hood, the Hon. Rob Simms, the Hon. Ms Lee and the Hon. Mr Hanson. I think there are a number of discussion points that will be brought up in terms of the amendments, and I will leave my commentary on those until that time. I thank all members for their indication that they will support the bill and I look forward to the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Simms–1]—

Page 3, after line 9 [clause 3, before subclause (1)]—Insert:

(a1) Section 4(1), definition of designated person—delete 'majority' and substitute '16'

This is one of a range of amendments that give effect to the intention to make voting optional for 16 and 17 year olds. I will treat this first amendment as indicative and I will not move the others if this amendment is not successful.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: This relates to the amendments intended to allow for 16 and 17 year olds to vote in council elections. Certainly, the government appreciates the member's commitment to furthering the interests and viewpoints of young people in our state, and we certainly agree that our civic life is stronger when we have the enthusiastic participation of young South Australians.

That is why our government has invested in civics and citizenship education to embed opportunities for young people to learn about our democracy and participate in activities that engage them both in school-based and wider activities, including the Active Citizenship Convention, to put their knowledge into practice; however, the government believes there is no compelling case for the age of entitlement to differ in local government to that which applies consistently across all state and federal elections.

The government also has some concerns around adding complexities to creating the voters roll for council elections, particularly at a time when changes will be needed to these processes to apply the state elector test and assurance. They are the reasons the government does not support this amendment and the others that the member has put forward in regard to 16 and 17 year olds voting.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I also rise, as I indicated in my second reading speech, to say the opposition will be opposing these amendments from the Hon. Rob Simms. Like the government, we do acknowledge his commitment to lowering the voting age, whether it be from a local government perspective or on a national level. We all share the same concerns as the government with regard to how that may be implemented, and we see no compelling evidence to lowering the voting age.

Engaging with young people and talking about local, state and federal government is a very important thing that we should do as elected members, and something I have certainly done over a number of years of being both in local and state government. Again, we will be opposing these amendments.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I was going to say I am sorry to disappoint the member, but I am not actually sorry to disappoint him on this occasion, other than to indicate that I will not be supporting this amendment. I think the minister has actually raised a good point. In terms of the journey ahead, and what we still need to do to ensure an appropriate level of education all round—not just with young people but with voters overall—and civics education plays a critical factor in that.

I think that is a starting point with young people. We have to this point, to a large extent, failed on that front, so I think before we jump the gun and start talking about 16 year olds voting we do everything we possibly can to ensure that by the time kids reach 18, they have a solid foundation in civics education. I look forward to seeing that expanded. It is on that basis, not because young people vote for the Greens, that I will not be supporting the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

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

Amendment No 1 [Hood–1]—

Page 3, line 11 [clause 3(1)]—After 'elector' insert 'or otherwise an Australian citizen'

These and subsequent amendments are about a base philosophy that if you are an Australian citizen and you own a property in a council area you deserve the opportunity to have a say in the election area. Under the government's bill, the property owner in a council area who happens to live interstate does not have the right to exercise a vote in the local government elections.

This is especially pertinent in border communities such as mine. You could have a farmer who owns significant farming land, for instance, but happens to live on the other side of the Victorian border not able to have a say in the election, which would elect councillors who are making decisions to affect the amount of rates that are being paid, or the services that are being delivered.

We believe it is a right for Australian citizens who are landowners to have their say in local government elections, and that is why we have put forward these amendments and subsequent amendments, which will be contingent on whether this one gets through or not, or if they are supported at all. We have deliberately not been prescriptive in the amendments, though, with regard to the most appropriate mechanism for this to be achieved with regard to relying on the HOA role, and that could also be, obviously, included in the subsequent regulations.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have a question for the mover: when he refers to not specifying which mechanism, can he give an indication of what type of mechanisms might enable that checking of Australian citizenship that could be chosen from?

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I thank the minister for her question. As I said, we have not been deliberate in the prescription of the amendment, and that appropriate mechanism will obviously be teased out in subsequent regulations, but it could be a reference to the House of Assembly's role in terms of the determining of whether someone would be an Australian citizen or not.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The government has taken the approach of requiring all voters to be state electors—that is, enrolled here to vote for the South Australian parliament—for two key reasons. The first is that we consider it entirely appropriate for a person voting for a South Australian council to be sufficiently invested in this state to also be on the role to vote for this parliament.

The second is that by requiring enrolment on the House of Assembly roll there can be the right degree of assurance that all people applying for enrolment have an entitlement to be enrolled and therefore vote in their council election. This is critical in council elections due to the inclusion of the property franchise and the need for the supplementary roll to enrol people with this entitlement.

Applications for the supplementary roll are made to council CEOs, who have the responsibility to check the relevant entitlements before enrolling that voter. Council CEOs have no way to reliably check for Australian citizenship, hence my question to the mover of this amendment a moment ago. However, they can check for enrolment on the House of Assembly roll, as this bill proposes that the Electoral Commissioner will be required to provide the information to enable this check to occur.

Without this check available to them, CEOs would potentially be relying on a declaration on an application form that the person applying is an Australian citizen. For example, in relation to this clause there would be no reliable way for a council to check that a designated person who will be receiving ballot papers on behalf of a group or body corporate is actually an Australian citizen. It is therefore quite likely that ballot papers could be sent to people who have no entitlement to vote.

This would also result in a reliance on checking a declaration of citizenship on the ballot paper envelope, which would be quite difficult to do. Ironically, this could potentially mean that a measure intended to increase the security of council elections would actually place it at greater risk, and for that reason the government will not be supporting this.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I had an open mind on this amendment but, having heard the explanation from the mover and the minister, I am persuaded that this is not a good idea. I will not be supporting the Liberal's amendments.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I too will not be supporting this amendment, based on the information that has been provided by the minister. I am sorry to put a knife through your heart, the Hon. Ben Hood—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: No, I am not sorry for that either. On a very serious note, I also take on board the feedback that I understand the government has sought from ECSA in relation to this about the impractical nature of this sort of proposal, particularly in terms of not being able to check interstate registers to determine the validity of the individual voting. I think there are a number of reasons there why, whilst the opposition might think this amendment is good in principle, it does not actually work in practice.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 4 to 8 passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I did indicate that I would not be progressing with the amendments that related to the voting age right after the first amendment, so I will not be progressing with amendment No. 3 [Simms-1].

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I have a question with regard to clause 9: can the minister explain, just under the amendments here for qualification for enrolment, how the government intends to advise voters who can no longer vote?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that both the Local Government Association and ECSA would be involved in putting out information. I think the relevant point that the honourable member is making refers to those who would be voting under the property franchise, and in terms of the application to be the relevant person to cast that vote there is information that is provided and that would be included in there.

Clause passed.

Clause 10.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I move:

Amendment No 1 [PrimIndRegDev–1]—

Page 5, after line 1 [clause 10, before subclause (1)]—Insert:

(a1) Section 15(6)—delete 'three' and substitute '2'

This is a technical amendment requested by the Electoral Commission of South Australia (ECSA) to provide that the roll must be brought up to date within two weeks after the supply of relevant information by the Electoral Commissioner. I note that clause 10 of the bill will amend section 15(13) of the LGE Act to reduce the time in which the roll must be brought up to date from four weeks to three weeks, so that the roll is up to date when nominations close. I am advised that ECSA's request aligns the council's requirement to bring the roll up to date with ECSA's requirement to provide roll information seven days after the close of rolls.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 11 passed.

New clause 11A.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 6 [Simms–1]—

Page 5, after line 16—After clause 11 insert:

11A—Amendment of section 19—Manner in which nominations are made

Section 19(2)(b)—after 'that' insert:

contains a statement of the name of each eligible political party (as defined in section 36(1) of the Electoral Act 1985) of which the candidate is a member and

This is the first amendment in relation to the requirement that the political party membership of a candidate standing for local government be included in the electoral material. I understand from feedback I have received that this will not have support. I will put it and test that, but then I will not move the associated amendment if it is not successful.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The government appreciates the member's concern that voters are aware of the candidates' political party membership, but this information is available to voters, as it must be disclosed in each candidate's profile. Further, these profiles are included in the ballot pack that is mailed to each voter along with the ballot paper for the voter to complete. Therefore, it is considered that information about political party membership is readily available to each voter when they consider who they will vote for.

There are also some real concerns across the local government sector and more broadly about the party politicisation of councils, or the potential for that. I think in general it is fair to say that councillors are seen very much as community representatives rather than party representatives, and most council members are independent of any formal party membership.

It is important to strike a balance between providing information that is critical to voters, including membership of political parties, and making council elections focused on the role of political parties, which I do not think would be a desirable outcome. Including information about candidates' party membership in their profiles but not on the ballot paper itself strikes this balance.

In addition to that, I understand that this is a new proposal. There has not been an opportunity to consult with the sector or with the Electoral Commissioner to understand any impacts that this could have in preparation for the 2026 council elections. Therefore, the government does not support this amendment.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: Similar to the government, we will not be supporting this amendment, given there is a requirement for a candidate for local government elections to declare their political party or any membership thereof, which will be included in the brochure that accompanies the ballot, which we think is sufficient.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I will not be supporting the amendment.

New clause negatived.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.