Bills

Statutes Amendment (Local Government Elections Review) Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 12 November 2025.)

Clause 12.

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

Amendment No 7 [Simms–1]—

Page 5, line 23 [clause 12, inserted subsection (1)]—After 'received' insert ', and the name of each nominated candidate,'

When I gave my second reading remarks, I reflected on the background behind that amendment. This was based on some feedback we had from regional councils. People are concerned that information is not being shared before nominations close, and in some regional communities it is resulting in a situation where there may be only one nominee for a particular seat or, indeed, no-one standing. I think it is fair to say I have had several discussions with Minister Joe Szakacs around this matter, and the minister, I think, had been originally reluctant to make that alteration. However, I think he has also recognised the impact that it is having on regional communities and has agreed to support the amendment, which I am greatly appreciative of.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: This reflects exactly amendment No. 4 [Hood-1]. I will certainly be supporting it as it is the feedback that we have heard across the state with the, I suppose, unintended consequences that happened at the last local government election.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The bill requires the returning officer to publish numbers of nominations received to address concerns that the non-disclosure of those details caused an increase in uncontested elections or elections with insufficient nominations. The amendment proposes that the names of the nominees must also be released.

The government's position has been to require the returning officer to release the number of nominations but not the name of candidates, with the position reflecting our view that a person's motivation for standing for council should be to serve the community and not to respond to personal relationships or to prevent a perceived poor candidate from getting up. Likewise, if other candidates, including incumbent members, are of the view that another person would make a good member, they should be encouraging them to stand well before nominations open and close.

However, we also acknowledge that many councils have made strong representations that names should also be released, and I can certainly see the benefits of that, as does the government. In light of this, and in respect of the arguments the Hon. Mr Simms, the mover of this amendment, has put to progress this amendment, the government is happy to be supporting it.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 13 to 16 passed.

Clause 17.

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

Amendment No 2 [PrimIndRegDev–1]—

Page 6, after line 36—Insert:

(1) Section 47(1)(b)—delete 'second' and substitute 'third'

This is a small change, a technical amendment that has been requested by the Electoral Commission of South Australia. It amends section 47 of the Local Government Elections Act so that it accords with the proposed amendment to section 5 in clause 4 of the bill that will shift close of voting from 5pm on the second last business day before the second Saturday in November to the third last day; that is, from the Thursday to the Wednesday.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: As indicated in my second reading speech, we will be supporting this amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 18 to 20 passed.

Clause 21.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I actually have two amendments lodged in relation to this. I move:

Amendment No 1 [Simms–3]—

Page 11, after line 7 [clause 21, after inserted section 81A]—Insert:

81B—Certain campaign arrangements or understandings to be disclosed

(1) If 2 or more candidates in an election or elections in the area of a council enter into an arrangement or understanding to do either or both of the following:

(a) to incur expenditure jointly on electoral material relating to the election or elections;

(b) to keep gifts of money received in relation to the election or elections in the same account,

each candidate must, within 1 business day of entering into the arrangement or understanding, give notice of it to the returning officer.

(2) A notice under subsection (1) must state the names of the candidates who have entered into the arrangement or understanding and comply with any requirements of the returning officer.

(3) The returning officer must, as soon as is reasonably practicable after receiving a notice under subsection (1), ensure that the notice is published in a prominent location on a website determined by the returning officer until 30 days after polling day for the relevant

I indicated previously what this is seeking to achieve. What this does is ensure that if you have two or more candidates standing in an election who are going to incur expenditure jointly on their election material, or keep gifts of money received in relation to the election in the same account, then that information must be shared with the returning officer, and that information disclosed publicly.

Members will know I had another amendment that related to this information being disclosed with the chief executive officer. This amendment, in response to feedback I received from the government, ensures that disclosure happens directly to the returning officer. This is an important transparency measure.

As I alluded to in my second reading remarks, it has been of concern to me for some time, as well as other people in the local government sector, that whilst membership of political parties is disclosed through the nomination process, people may be pooling their campaign resources through more informal arrangements, operating in effect as a sort of factional base, and that information may not be disclosed to the public during the election period. Under this amendment, if a group of candidates are running together and sharing campaign costs, then the community at least will have access to that information. I think that is an important change.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The government appreciates that the intent of this amendment is to provide information to voters about candidates who may be standing on a joint ticket. I note the member's first proposed amendment was that this information must be provided to the council's CEO, but also that campaign donation returns and the candidates of the Adelaide City Council campaign expenditure returns are now provided to the Electoral Commissioner as the returning officer. I appreciate that change the honourable member is proposing.

As all of this information is maintained on the ECSA website, it therefore seems a better place to also host this information if it is required to be provided. Given the member has made this small change, the government supports this amendment in the interests of providing transparent and full information to voters.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: As indicated in our second reading speech, the opposition will not be supporting this amendment. We feel that there are some questions around how this may be enforced, whether it be two candidates who receive gifts of money from a particular individual, even though they may not necessarily be working together but are advocating for the same issues within their council area. Again, we will not be supporting the amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 22 to 24 passed.

Clause 25.

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

Amendment No 3 [PrimIndRegDev–1]—

Page 12, after line 16 [clause 25, inserted section 91B, after inserted subsection (2)]—Insert:

(2a) A meeting held by a council under this section must be presided over by the chief executive officer of the council, or a person appointed by the chief executive officer (who must not be a candidate in the general election).

I am advised that this amendment was requested by the Local Government Association to clarify that it is not appropriate that a public meeting for candidates be chaired by a candidate who may gain an advantage by doing so. It is noted that section 91A(2)(b) of the Local Government (Elections) Act requires that council caretaker policies prohibit the use of council resources for the advantage of a particular candidate or group of candidates.

While councils could therefore include this requirement within their caretaker policy to ensure that this is the case for the new candidate meetings, this amendment would put the matter beyond doubt. This amendment will therefore amend the new section 91B to include that a public meeting is to be chaired by the chief executive officer of a council or a person other than a candidate for election, appointed by the chief executive officer who is responsible for determining the procedure to be observed at the meeting.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: With this amendment and many aspects of the bill we do oppose it in general, as it obligates all councils to hold public meetings during an election campaign. The amendment is not something we can support in its entirety, but I do have some questions of the minister in regard to some of the answers we received to questions in the other place from the minister himself, essentially saying that election debates are not inherently controversial, which we disagree with.

Given the inherently controversial nature of election debates that can happen, I am wondering whether the minister can answer some questions. Is it not likely that there will be disagreements about debate format, speaking order, time permitted for speaking, whether questions are permitted, each candidate's position on the stage or the powers of the presiding officer of intervention? Is it not inevitable that the council, its employees or contractors ultimately will be or could be accused by one or more of the candidates or their supporters of bias and, therefore, is it not highly likely that public meetings may undermine the electorate's confidence and the integrity of their council and its employees, as is being considered?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: First of all, I would like to correct the honourable member's opening remarks. He is mistaken in saying that this bill mandates that public meetings of the types we are talking about must occur. My advice is that they must occur unless expressly decided by the council in their caretaker policies to not hold them. So it is open to every council to decide not to hold such a candidate forum.

However, the government has received a great deal of feedback that the voting public, the electors, would like to know more about their candidates. They would like to see more transparency, to be able to ask questions of their candidates, and therefore that is the main driver for including this particular provision. In terms of the formats and all of the other matters the honourable member referred to, my understanding and advice is that they can be determined by the council within their own policies.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: Supplementary to that: is it not the case then that a sitting council could decide on the format a public meeting could look like for future elections? Does the minister consider that that may actually be to the detriment of new candidates who may be sitting in that election?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that there is an existing requirement in that the caretaker policies cannot favour one particular candidate. So any policy that was developed by a council needs to take that into account and ensure that that is the case. But it comes back again to whether the opposition believes that there should be transparency and openness in candidates for council and the opportunity for residents, for ratepayers, to be able to ask questions of those who propose to put themselves forward for election to council.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I thank the minister for her reflections on what the opposition may or may not believe in regard to transparency.

The Hon. C.M. Scriven interjecting:

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I am trying to be nice to you today, Clare; you are a grandma. In regard to this amendment appointing a chief executive officer, thinking about the public meeting section of the Summary Offences Act, specifically section 18A, if a person being disorderly and abusive is a candidate in the election and the candidate has not yet had the formal opportunity to speak, does the person presiding, which would be the chief executive in this amendment, have the power to have that candidate removed?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised, first of all, to point out that it can be the chief executive or a person appointed by the chief executive, so it is not essential that it be that chief executive if there are concerns around public perceptions. Secondly, each council will determine their caretaker policies, which will incorporate those matters. They can, for example, determine that the meeting could be online and what the behavioural standards would be.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: Supplementary to that, and this will be my last question at this clause: what powers then would, I guess, the presiding member or the chief executive have to protect staff and council contractors should words or actions at such meetings constitute a risk to the wellbeing of council officers? Is that something else that would be included in the council policies?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: According to my advice, it would be reasonable to expect that a council policy on these sorts of matters would include a provision that would say that if someone was threatening the health, safety or wellbeing of either other candidates or staff or contractors, they would be ejected from such a meeting. That would be something where there would be, I think, a rightful expectation of the public that such a clause would be included in those council policies.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 26 to 30 passed.

New clause 30A.

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

Amendment No 11 [Simms–1]—

Page 14, after line 17—After clause 30 insert:

30A—Amendment of section 76—Allowances

Section 76—after subsection (12) insert:

(12a) Amounts must be withheld from the payment of allowances to a member of a council, and paid to the Commissioner of Taxation in accordance with the Pay as you go system under the Taxation Administration Act 1953 of the Commonwealth, if—

(a) that system contemplates amounts to be withheld from such payments; and

(b) the member requests, in accordance with any requirements of the council, that such withholding occur.

I outlined this amendment in my second reading remarks. It ensures that amounts will be withheld from the payment of allowances to a member of council and paid to the Commissioner of Taxation in accordance with the pay-as-you-go system, if that system contemplates amounts to be withheld from such payments and the member requests, in accordance with any requirements of the council, that that occur. In other words, this would apply in circumstances where the council has a system in place to be able to collect the tax on a pay-as-you-go basis and if the elected member requests that that arrangement apply.

My reason for proposing this is that this was certainly something I encountered when I was on a council and something I know has been an issue for a number of other councillors. Because of the nature of the allowance, if pay-as-you-go taxation is not collected it means that, at the end of your financial year, you can be stung with a giant tax bill, and that could deter people from being on council, particularly people who might be juggling part-time bills. This just gives them a little bit more certainty around being able to manage their own affairs. I have had some positive feedback from the local government sector in relation to this.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: As indicated in my second reading speech, we will be opposing this as we believe it unnecessary and ultimately outside the jurisdiction of this bill. It is also my advice that advice has been sought previously by the ATO in regard to the understanding of a councillor's allowance and whether it is income or not. I believe that advice is rather lacking in terms of what it means. If the ATO were to ultimately have to crack that egg open, I know that, most especially considering my time in local government, I did pay tax on that allowance. I know others who did not, and there may be some significant money either going in or going out from the ATO if this does happen. Ultimately, we will not be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think it is worth pointing out two items which the honourable member opposite perhaps has not picked up, which is that the amendment refers to withholding of pay-as-you-go taxation amounts from a council member's allowance should this be possible under the relevant commonwealth legislation and should council members request it. So if it were passed and it were possible, if council members did not request for that to occur then it would not occur. Therefore, for any of those who are not liable for taxation in that circumstance, nothing would change for them but only for those who actively sought it out.

I am advised that the Taxation Administration Act 1953 currently does not allow for this and that this amendment would therefore not have immediate effect. But, as pointed out, should that change this would then obviously have the desired effect that the mover of the amendment is seeking. So the government will be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I indicate for the record that I will be supporting the amendment.

New clause inserted.

Clause 31.

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

Amendment No 4 [PrimIndRegDev–1]—

Page 14, lines 21 to 25 [clause 31, inserted paragraph (c)]—Delete inserted paragraph (c) and substitute:

(c) reimbursement of expenses (not exceeding the prescribed amount) incurred by the member in producing printed material in prescribed circumstances or of a prescribed kind (other than excluded material) necessary for engaging with the community in relation to local government matters.

This amendment relates to a clause in the bill that will require councils to provide a reimbursement to council members for expenditure on printed material that is necessary for community engagement, to a maximum amount that will be prescribed. The bill clause also provides that this reimbursement cannot be for electoral material, as defined in the Local Government (Elections) Act. This is essentially material that is designed to affect the results of an election. I am advised that this amendment responds to feedback from councils that requested greater clarity on what should or should not be reimbursed.

It is critical that local council members engage directly with their constituents and that they are supported to do so. One broader issue that the government is considering in this bill is people's lack of engagement with their council, which becomes particularly evident at election time. Often this lack of engagement is a reflection of citizens' lack of knowledge about who their local members are, let alone what they actually believe or stand for. Any effort, therefore, that local members can make to get to know their constituents and for their constituents to get to know them should be supported. Therefore, it is a simple proposition that if a council member makes this effort then this should be recognised through what will be relatively small reimbursements.

However, the government acknowledges that councils are seeking some more guidance as to what can be reimbursed and what should not be. As the minister undertook in the other place, these amendments therefore bring this clarity. In particular, the amendment is a commitment to drafting regulations that will clarify what can be reimbursed. Of course, these regulations will be widely consulted upon with the LGA and the local government sector more widely.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: As indicated in the second reading speech, we do not support this amendment to the aspect of the bill which we are opposing in general around reimbursement of expenses incurred by members by producing printed material. We do appreciate this amendment is trying to provide clarity, but overall we believe this is an ambiguous clause that we do not support.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 5 [PrimIndRegDev–1]—

Page 14, after line 25 [clause 31, after inserted paragraph (c)]—Insert:

(2) Section 77—after subsection (2) insert:

(3) In this section—

excluded material means—

(a) electoral material within the meaning of the Local Government (Elections) Act 1999; or

(b) material produced or distributed between the close of nominations and the close of voting for a general election of a council or a periodic election.

This relates to the amendment we have just discussed.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 32 passed.

The CHAIR: There is an amendment in the name of the Hon. Mr Simms to insert new clause 32A. It is amendment No. 1 [Simms-2].

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I will not be proceeding with that amendment, Chair.

Clause 33 passed.

Clause 34.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: Just a question to the minister with regard to clause 34 in relation to election sign laws. We have had some feedback as to the complicated nature of those laws. With regard to clause 34, does the minister or the government see that many candidates and members of the public may actually not understand those election sign laws and may be caught up in regard to this?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the intention of the changes in this clause are to bring local government elections in regard to this matter in line with what applies for state and federal elections. The clause changes the way in which electoral advertising posters (EAPs)—what we might sometimes call in this place corflutes—may be displayed in local government elections. Currently, the display of EAPs is regulated according to the material that they are made of. The new provisions will change this to regulate EAPs in relation to the place and time they may be displayed, as is now the case for both federal and state elections.

This reflects community expectations that the display of EAPs should be very limited, as they are environmentally damaging and harmful to visual amenity. It has been drafted to be as consistent as possible with the rules that apply to the display of material in federal elections and in state elections. The LGA supports this change, according to my advice, to bring consistency to the display of electoral advertising in all three elections—federal, state and local—as this will make the job of regulating displays of posters much simpler for councils. Similarly, one would expect in relation to the member's direct question that that consistency would reduce the confusion rather than increase it.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I thank the minister for her response. We will be supporting amendment No. 6, as we believe it does provide greater clarity around the powers of the council officers.

Clause passed.

New clause 34A.

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

Amendment No 6 [PrimIndRegDev–1]—

Page 15, after line 39—Insert:

34A—Amendment of section 227—Removal of moveable sign

Section 227—after subsection (2) insert:

(3) If—

(a) a local electoral poster to which section 226(2a) applies is exhibited in contravention of that subsection; or

(b) an electoral advertising poster relating to a State election is exhibited otherwise than in accordance with section 226(3)(caa); or

(c) a designated electoral advertising poster to which section 226A(1) applies is exhibited in contravention of that subsection,

an authorised person may order the person who authorises exhibition of the poster to remove it from the road or road-related area.

(4) If the authorised person cannot find the person who authorises exhibition of the poster, or that person fails to comply immediately with the order, the authorised person may remove and dispose of the poster.

This amendment was requested by the Local Government Association, and it provides that authorised officers can remove electoral advertising posters that have been displayed in a way that is not compliant with sections 226 and 226A of the Local Government Act. Section 227 provides that moveable signs, including electoral advertising posters, that are not displayed in accordance with the council's by-laws—which should include a requirement to comply with section 226—can be removed by an authorised officer. While authorised officers should therefore have this power, this amendment will clarify it and ensure that the authority is provided without councils having to amend their by-laws, which could otherwise be necessary.

New clause inserted.

Clause 35.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I just want to put a question or two to the minister in regard to the minister's powers and how they must be related to, or constrained by, the emergency. In a declared emergency, the minister will be granted very broad powers. To what extent must the exercise of these powers be related to addressing the emergency itself? For example, if there was a flood emergency along the River Murray, could the minister exercise new powers to direct the amalgamation of the River Murray councils or to send council road crews to fix state government roads or to achieve some other state emergency policy objective that was unrelated to the flood emergency?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that this bill does not give the minister any new powers. It simply expands the circumstances in which they can be applied, in this case to all declared emergencies. It retains the restraints and oversights that were introduced in 2020, such that the minister may only make notices that are reasonably necessary as a result of the declared emergency. The notices are disallowable by parliament and the notices expire automatically 28 days after the cessation of the emergency. In addition to that, it only allows the minister to vary or suspend the act. He or she cannot create new powers.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I thank the minister for her answer. The proposed deletion of subsection (8) removes the requirement of the minister to report on the review of the operation of the existing clause in relation to the COVID emergency. Why has the state government decided not to include similar reporting requirements with respect to the exercise of these significant ministerial powers during future emergencies?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that this question was answered in the other place as well, and the reason is that the requirement related to a sunset clause that was in existence at the time. The previous clause said the minister must ensure that a report on the review of the operation of this section is tabled in each house of parliament before 31 December 2021. Therefore, obviously, that is no longer relevant, and that is the reason for the removal of that particular clause.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: So, essentially, there is no requirement for the minister to report any longer because of the date that was set previously? Why did the government not update that date?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that was a report in relation to COVID and therefore that report has already been done, and that is why it is no longer applicable. I am further advised that use of this provision will need to be reported to the Legislative Review Committee. So there are reporting requirements that will apply and, obviously, they can then be potentially disallowed.

Clause passed.

Clauses 36 and 37 passed.

Clause 38.

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

Amendment No 7 [PrimIndRegDev–1]—

Page 16, line 29 [clause 38(1), definition of default person]—After 'who' insert:

has been nominated by the chief executive officer under Schedule 1 clause 3B(1) to vote on behalf of the body corporate or group in an election or poll and

This amendment is a technical amendment requested by the Adelaide City Council. It relates to the changes to the City of Adelaide Act within the Statutes Amendment (Local Government Review) Act 2021 and amends the definition of 'default person' to specifically reference that a default person is nominated by the council's chief executive officer.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

New clause 38A.

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

Amendment No 14 [Simms–1]—

Page 16, after line 32—After clause 38 insert:

38A—Amendment of section 24—Allowances

Section 24—after subsection (12) insert:

(12a) Amounts must be withheld from the payment of allowances to a member of the Council, and paid to the Commissioner of Taxation in accordance with the Pay as you go system under the Taxation Administration Act 1953 of the Commonwealth, if—

(a) that system contemplates amounts to be withheld from such payments; and

(b) the member requests, in accordance with any requirements of the Council, that such withholding occur.

This is consistent with the other issue that was raised in relation to taxation and gives effect to that amendment.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that this is essentially the same amendment as the one we discussed earlier regarding pay as you go, but in relation to the City of Adelaide. Given they are under a separate act it needs to be moved again. The government is supporting it.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: As we opposed the previous amendment, we will be opposing this one.

New clause inserted.

Clause 39.

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

Amendment No 8 [PrimIndRegDev–1]—

Page 17, lines 1 to 5 [clause 39, inserted paragraph (c)]—Delete inserted paragraph (c) and substitute:

(c) reimbursement of expenses (not exceeding the prescribed amount) incurred by the member in producing printed material in prescribed circumstances or of a prescribed kind (other than excluded material) necessary for engaging with the community in relation to local government matters.

Amendment No 9 [PrimIndRegDev–1]—

Page 17, after line 5 [clause 39, after inserted paragraph (c)]—Insert:

(2) Section 25—after subsection (2) insert:

(3) In this section—

excluded material means—

(a) electoral material within the meaning of the Local Government (Elections) Act 1999; or

(b) material produced or distributed between the close of nominations and the close of voting for a general election of the Council or a periodic election.

These amendments propose the same changes that my previous amendment proposed for the requirements for reimbursement of expenses, in order to apply them to the Adelaide City Council.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: As we previously opposed other amendments tied to these, we will be opposing them.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 40 passed.

Clause 41.

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

Amendment No 10 [PrimIndRegDev–1]—

Page 17, lines 18 and 19 [clause 41(6)]—Delete subclause (6)

This technical amendment has been requested by the Adelaide City Council and agreed to by ECSA. It will remove the proposed change to the timing in which the council must bring the roll up to date from four weeks to three, returning it to four. The council and ECSA have advised this is necessary for the City of Adelaide to avoid a clash with the end of the prescribed period for the identification of a default person to exercise the vote for a group or body corporate where a group or body corporate has not nominated a person.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: We will be supporting the amendment.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 11 [PrimIndRegDev–1]—

Page 17, after line 32 [clause 41, after subclause (9)]—Insert:

(9a) Schedule 1, clause 3B(1)—delete '(a default person)'

(9b) Schedule 1, clause 3B(3)(a)—after 'Commission' insert:

or another appropriate public body

This has also been requested by the Adelaide City Council and it relates to the changes to the City of Adelaide Act within the Statutes Amendment (Local Government Review) Act. The amendment proposes to include 'another appropriate public body' along with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission as a body from whose information the CEO may nominate a default person, as this will expand the sources of information available to the council's CEO to ensure that a person is nominated by the CEO to exercise the vote on behalf of groups and body corporates, and therefore the government proposes it.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 2 [Simms–3]—

Page 21, after line 11 [clause 41(16), after inserted clause 24A]—Insert:

24B—Certain campaign arrangements or understandings to be disclosed

(1) If 2 or more candidates in an election or elections in the area of the Council enter into an arrangement or understanding to do either or both of the following:

(a) to incur expenditure jointly on electoral material relating to the election or elections;

(b) to keep gifts of money received in relation to the election or elections in the same account,

each candidate must, within 1 business day of entering into the arrangement or understanding, give notice of it to the returning officer.

(2) A notice under subclause (1) must state the names of the candidates who have entered into the arrangement or understanding and comply with any requirements of the returning officer.

(3) The returning officer must, as soon as is reasonably practicable after receiving a notice under subclause (1), ensure that the notice is published in a prominent location on a website determined by the returning officer until 30 days after polling day for the relevant election or elections.

This is to give effect to the other amendment that we dealt with earlier in relation to the pooling of campaign funds and the disclosure around that.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: As we opposed the previous amendment, we will be opposing this one.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: As noted in my comments on the member's similar amendment to the Local Government (Elections) Act, the government supports this amendment as amended, to require the information to be provided to the returning officer.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (12:24): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.