HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-10-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ELECTIONS) (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 23 September 2009. Page 4068.)

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (11:02): I am pleased to make a contribution to the legislation before the house, and I indicate that I am the lead speaker on this bill. This measure was introduced in the other place a number of weeks ago, and I thought that we may have debated it during the last sitting week; however, it has been listed on the sitting program for this week.

The bill has arisen from a comprehensive review undertaken after the local government elections in 2006. The review, which was undertaken by Ms Margaret Wagstaff, commenced in April 2007, and the final report was delivered in January 2008. I have a copy of the report, which is entitled 'Independent Review of Local Government Elections South Australia 2007: Final Report'. I will not necessarily hold up the house canvassing all the different issues. I could, if I was minded to do so, but I will not because I think it is important that we deal with this type of legislation in a relatively less than tardy manner.

I highlight that the report made some 27 recommendations, covering three main themes in relation to voter participation, representation and the election process, and the government supports 23 of those recommendations, which are included in this bill.

I understand that some amendments were moved successfully in the other place, which, obviously, are reflected in the bill that is before our house today. Specific issues were identified through the review process which resulted in the final report being produced; and the first of which the bill looks to address is a publicity campaign. I know that for some time there has been an issue in relation to encouraging those enrolled to vote in local government to participate and to cast their vote in an election.

I can make a contrast here between the state Liberal Party's position on local government voting and the Labor Party's policy in as much as, in its policy, the Labor Party has deemed that local government election voting should be compulsory, whereas this side of the house maintains that people should be free to make a choice and to vote voluntarily, and that view is also reflected in our position in relation to state elections. However, it is my understanding that the policy in the Labor Party's documents concerning local government elections was there prior to the 2006 election, and I am not aware that it has been changed since that date.

I asked the current Minister for Families and Communities, when she held the portfolio of local government relations, a question or two in previous years about that policy, but, in her usual manner, she artfully dodged the question and spoke all around it. I think that I have asked it in question time, and from memory in estimates committees, and the minister chose to speak about everything but the actual question that I asked. However, be that as it may, that is a bit of history in relation to looking at voter participation and some issues that have been raised in the parliament about that specific matter.

In relation to a publicity campaign, the bill proposes that responsibility for promoting local government elections be transferred from each individual council to the Electoral Commissioner. There are huge variations between councils as to how much they spend on advertising their own specific elections and how effective those campaigns are. It is felt that a statewide campaign will assist in promoting a higher voter turnout through a better level of awareness and education about the role of local government and the benefits of voting.

Obviously there are real benefits in voting because each individual person in a democratic society, which ours certainly is, exercises their democratic right in casting their vote. I cannot understand why people do not necessarily look to cast their vote in local government elections because local government is regarded as the level, sphere or tier, whichever way you want to describe it, which is the closest government to the community. They are the people who deliver services to the community on a week by week and day to day basis, whereas the state and federal levels of government certainly deliver worthwhile services but are not necessarily as close to the community as is local government.

In view of the fact that local government has a direct impact, relationship and benefit to its individual communities, I do not understand why those who are able to vote do not choose to do so. It is a relatively simple process in that you do not have to go to a polling booth, as in state and federal elections, because the voting process is handled by postal votes. You get your ballot paper, envelope and all the other material you need, fill it out, complete it, cast your vote, put it in the envelope and post it off.

It is felt that a statewide publicity campaign will assist in promoting a higher voter turnout, which is very important; however, in the bill there is no detail of the actual cost of the campaign or how the costs will be apportioned amongst the 68 councils, except to say that the Electoral Commissioner will consult with the LGA.

The indication from the government is that the campaign could cost around $1 million, or approximately $1 per voter. We can talk about this more in committee, but I note that the LGA had some strong opposition to new section 13A(1), which related to educating the public about the role and functions of local government and its elected members. It was the LGA's opinion that that fell within its role and did not need to be provided for in legislation. An amendment moved in the other place was successful and that subsection was deleted; however, the other subsections were allowed to pass.

I consulted extensively with the Local Government Association on the bill. We had, from memory, at least two meetings to discuss the bill in depth, and I thank the LGA for its participation. Obviously, this is a key piece of legislation which will impact on the LGA. I also received a comprehensive briefing from agency officers in consultation with the minister. I thank those people who assisted me in developing the state Liberals' position in relation to the bill. I thank the LGA, officers of the Office of State/Local Government Relations and the minister's staff for their assistance.

The next aspect of the bill I would like to highlight is that of a property franchisee voters roll. What the bill proposes is that, if you are a resident ratepayer—a property owner—and you reside in the specific council area, you are automatically enrolled on the voters roll. However, if you are a non-resident property owner—meaning that you own property but live outside the council boundary—the bill proposes that you will not automatically be enrolled on the voters roll and, every four years (every election cycle), it will be the responsibility of the non-resident ratepayer to make application to enrol. The responsibility and the onus is placed on the ratepayer and not necessarily the local council.

We will explore this more in the committee stage, and the minister will obviously be aware that we will move some amendments in relation to this. The argument put forward by the government is that it is an administrative burden on individual councils to compile a separate roll and then match it with the House of Assembly roll. On this side of the house, the state Liberals do not agree with that. The council has a database, because it sends out the rate notices. It knows who its ratepayers are, whether they are resident or non-resident.

We do not buy the argument that it is a burden on the council, that it is administratively difficult and that it takes a substantial amount of time to do. In view of that, we do not support that part of the bill. We think that if you are a property owner, whether you are a resident or non-resident, you have an automatic right, if you like, to be able to vote for whoever you want as mayor and councillors.

Another part of the bill concerns body corporates and groups and, again, this is related to reform that applies to property franchisees who are bodies corporate or groups. The purpose of this is to prevent individuals from voting multiple times in various capacities in the same council election. The corporation or group would need to nominate a person to be a designated person. Obviously, this does not apply to the City of Adelaide scenario, because it has quite a different profile in relation to its ratepayers, bodies corporate and groups, and matters relating to those specific issues. The Liberal opposition does not have a real issue with this part of the bill, and we are prepared to support it.

Another aspect of the bill concerns the prohibition of the withdrawal of a candidate. This matter came to my attention after the 2006 local government elections, in 2006-07 when I was the shadow minister for state/local government relations. In one particular council the ward election failed because one of the candidates was not able to continue their candidacy in the election. The act provides that, if a candidate cannot continue for medical reasons or for other substantiated reasons, that election fails.

For some time, I have been of the opinion that that is quite an outdated provision. The bill looks to bring local government elections into line with the state Electoral Act 1985, which provides that the withdrawal of a candidate would not lead to the failure of that election and basically would result in the candidate withdrawing from the election completely. As a consequence, the ward election would not be delayed, and I think that is quite a good measure.

The next aspect concerns the publication of all candidate statements, and the bill makes provision for a statewide website where the public can check out any candidate in any council district to ascertain what they stand for and what are their policies. The proposal is that the LGA would manage the website and that section of the bill removes any civil liability from the LGA in relation to candidate statements, and I guess that is reasonable. However, in our consultation with the LGA, it supported managing the site, where the state government provides some financial support for it. At present, the government has not committed to assisting in funding that and is likely to pass on the costs to the councils.

We have a different view in relation to the legislative requirement that a statewide website be constructed. We think the LGA could adequately cover this by implementing a policy stating that it is happy to provide a statewide website and publish the candidates' details. We do not think it is necessary to legislate that. Obviously, there is a place for legislation in this state, and there are certain areas where legislation is not necessary. It is the opinion of those on this side of the house that, in relation to this particular issue, it is not necessary that we legislate that requirement. Again, I flag that we have had an amendment drafted to see that this part of the bill is not passed.

In relation to publication of misleading material, the bill inserts provisions of the Electoral Act to apply in local government elections where the Electoral Commissioner will have the power to request the withdrawal or retraction of a candidate's statements that are inaccurate or misleading and that the failure to do so would lead to legal action.

Another very important initiative in this bill relates to caretaker policy; that is, when councils enter into what can be referred to as caretaker mode. This is to address problems that occurred back in the 2006 election campaign, where some controversial decisions were made by some councils in relation to financial commitments during that election period. The bill outlines this in a reasonably comprehensive manner and seeks to insert section 91A, which contains eight subsections and is headed 'Conduct of council during election period'. Referring to 'designated decisions', it states:

(a) relating to the employment or remuneration of a chief executive officer, other than a decision to appoint an acting chief executive officer; or

(b) to terminate the appointment of a chief executive officer; or

(c) to enter into a contract, arrangement or understanding (other than a prescribed contract) the total value of which exceeds whichever is the greater of $100,000 or 1% of the council's revenue from rates in the preceding year; or

(d) allowing the use of council resources for the advantage of a particular candidate or group of candidates...

Following on from that, the bill provides the following meaning of 'prescribed contract':

a contract for the provision of goods, services or any other matter that has been included in an annual business plan and budget of the council.

I think that is quite a reasonable inclusion in the act, notwithstanding the fact that the LGA did have some issues in relation to some of those details I have just outlined. I understand that there were some amendments successfully moved in the other place in relation to those specific issues concerning caretaker policy.

There are some other provisions relating to provisional enrolment for 17 year olds that bring local government into line with state and commonwealth spheres. The bill seeks to fix a time of 4pm for the drawing of lots to determine the order of the names on the ballot paper. The opposition has some issues in relation to that. For each of the 68 councils, it may not be appropriate or convenient to have the drawing of the lots at 4pm. Again, we will explore that matter in the committee stage.

There are also issues relating to reducing the time frame to provide campaign donation returns. The campaign donation returns are to be retained for four years, and we think that is a reasonable proposition. Some changes are proposed in relation to the way in which members of the community can access the copy of the voters roll. The LGA is strongly in favour of all election candidates receiving an electronic copy of the voters roll, whereas at present candidates can receive a printed version.

This was actually a recommendation from Ms Wagstaff's review, and the government has rejected that and is actually in favour of the candidates receiving a printed version. There are some issues relating to this matter; again, the state Liberals' position involves a different view, and the government is seeking to change the act so that members of the public are not able to purchase a copy of the roll. They are only able to visit the council and view the roll and, obviously, record the relevant information that they want. However, we have some issues in relation to that aspect of the bill, which we will explore in the committee stage.

Finally, I refer to the term of the local government election cycle of four years. When this proposal was before the parliament some years ago seeking to change the term from three to four years, the Liberals' policy supported three-year terms for local government elections. Again, we will take this opportunity with this bill, now that the act is open, to revisit and address that issue in the committee stage.

Considerable consultation has been carried out during the review process. Approximately 6,500 surveys have been forwarded, with 358 replies being received from groups and individuals, representing a response of 5.4 per cent. The state Liberal opposition received representations from the LGA, 12 councils, seven resident groups and the Property Council in relation to this specific matter. I am comfortable that the consultation process has been reasonable.

As I said earlier, the Local Government Association has had some issues of concern with the bill and had members in the other place move a number of amendments to address them. Some were successful and some were not; however, I am not aware, at this stage of the debate, whether those amendments will be tabled and moved in this place.

It is the Liberal opposition's intention to support the bill with a number of amendments, which will obviously be moved at a later stage.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:34): I would like to make a brief contribution. As we know, this bill is focused primarily on elections as they relate to local government. I am still looking forward to the government coming forward with a complete reform package for local government. For some reason they are very shy—and I can understand that there is an election coming up—about any local government reform to any significant extent.

This bill has a lot of good features, although I think it could have been improved by tackling some other issues. It needs to make clear that candidates are required declare anything that may pose a conflict of interest; some of that is addressed. There should be clear guidelines for lobbyists and interest groups. That is a bigger issue that goes beyond local government, but it certainly applies to that area. In fact, local government is probably the area most vulnerable to corrupt practices, because they are dealing with land zoning, and so on.

I have argued for a while that residents and ratepayers should be able to respond to articles published in council-funded material. At the moment, since they are effectively conveying the views of the mayor, elected members and senior council staff, there seems to be little opportunity, in the articles I have looked at, for ratepayers or residents to respond to claims or the views expressed in those newsletters, and I think that is a fundamental requirement in a democratic society.

I do not believe that, close to an election, councils and elected members should be producing newsletters expressing particular views. I suggested three months. The minister did not accept that, but I do not think that councils should be pumping out material that will give the incumbent an advantage in the three months prior to an election. As we know, in state and federal politics the incumbent has an advantage anyway. I do not think that that should be reinforced by allowing the use of ratepayer-funded material to entrench an incumbent even further.

I have argued for a long time that the Auditor-General should have greater power to oversee the finances of local government and their business enterprises, and I think that should be part of a reform package, an ICAC-type package. I have put up an alternative package that I believe will deliver the goods, and that is part of it.

I have also argued that voluntary enrolment and voting for 16 and 17 year olds should be allowed. The review of local government elections did not come down with a view one way or another. I take it that the minister is not opposed, because the correspondence that I have received suggests that the minister does not have a strong view one way or another on that.

I will be seeking to amend the bill to allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote in council elections if they so desire. I think it is important that they be able to vote, particularly at local council elections, because a lot of what councils do affects young people in particular and, by the time they move from being a young person to someone in their early 20s, that opportunity—now with a four year cycle for elections—to have any influence on issues that are pertinent to them, as young people, often passes them by; and it could be trying to get a skate park or something like that.

You can have all the consultative committees you like, but the only time that people listen—whether it is federal, state or, in this argument, local—is when the people who are making the decisions can be affected by your vote. That is the only time that they will listen. You can talk all day, you can have as many youth forums as you like and young people can run around naked, but no-one will take any notice. The only notice that will occur is when those young people have the opportunity to cast a meaningful vote, and that is what I think should happen.

As I said at the start, this bill is limited in its focus, so I will not get on my hobby horse too much about the wider reform of local government. However, I point out that in the metropolitan area of Adelaide—if you include Mount Barker as well, which I think is part of the metropolitan area—there are close to 300 elected members in local government, including mayors, and that is just within the metropolitan area. I think that country areas are a special case.

If you compare that with Brisbane—and, as I have said on many occasions, I am not necessarily advocating a one council model; I think it should be determined after an inquiry by an independent judge—they have 27 paid councillors. The councillors in the Brisbane model deal with a budget of $2.2 billion, which is bigger than the budget for Tasmania, and the total operating budget for the metropolitan area of Adelaide is $971 million. So, Brisbane council has a budget more than twice the size.

As I have pointed out on many occasions, the number of employees is very similar: in South Australia it is just over 8,000 within the metropolitan area, and in Brisbane it is about 8,600, and that includes the bus drivers and people working in water and sewerage. You do not have to be a genius to work out that the potential for savings is enormous and that it would translate to hundreds of dollars, I believe, for households if you had a genuine reform package. So, I hope the government will eventually come around to that and not just tinker with local government issues, as this bill does.

Having said that, I think the bill is a step forward. I pay tribute to the people in councils who put in a lot of time and effort. I was at the Callington Show at the weekend, as was the member for Kavel; and Ann Ferguson, the mayor of Mount Barker, and Allan Arbon, the mayor of the Rural City of Murray Bridge, were also there, like many other councils' elected members, giving up their time to be volunteers.

They do not get much in the way of financial assistance. In a newsletter put out by city councillor David Plumridge he suggested that I had said somewhere that people in local government get perks. Well, the elected members certainly do not, and if I have ever said that I was wrong, because they do not get any perks at all; they get very modest financial assistance. I would say that, in most cases, an ordinary councillor would put in a minimum of 20 to 30 hours a week. They should be praised for the time they put in and for their effort. I am constantly amazed to see the mayor of the City of Onkaparinga at every function that I go, to as well as many others; she must rarely be at home. I give her full marks for her commitment.

In any comment I make about local government I pay tribute to the elected members. Like us in here, they are trying to do what they believe is best for the community. We will always have different opinions about whether someone's view is the right one or not; nevertheless, I believe the sense of commitment and community service is there.

Overall, I believe this bill does offer some significant improvements. I think it could have gone a bit further in certain regards, and I will be testing the parliament to see whether this chamber agrees with giving 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote—as they do in many parts of Germany and in many other countries in local government elections, and as they do in places such as the Isle of Man in elections beyond local government.

I believe that giving young people the opportunity to vote will make local government even more meaningful for them and give them an opportunity to have a real say at a time in their life when they can realise the benefit of their actions during the ensuing four years. I think that at the moment young people are often neglected and overlooked by the wider community; lip service is paid to them. This is an opportunity to allow them to have a meaningful say via a vote.

As I said at the start, the review of local government elections did not come out for or against this proposition, so I take it that there is no strong feeling against them having the vote. I can tell people who say that they do not know what they are doing that the young people with whom I have contact are pretty smart cookies. Most of them are very capable and articulate—in the City of Onkaparinga, I think the deputy mayor is only in his early 20s—so the argument that young people are not with it and cannot understand what is going on is ridiculous.

This is an opportunity for people in the Liberal Party to show that they are progressive and genuinely liberal—

Mr Venning: What about the government?

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: —and for the government to show that it is committed to young people. The sky will not fall in if you allow young people to participate in local government elections.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (11:44): This is an interesting piece of legislation, and I, for one, question some of the motives behind it. However, before going into the details of that, I would like to make some general comments about local government.

I served an apprenticeship in local government some years ago, and when I was involved in local council matters I was very frustrated by the continual interference from this level of government in the affairs of local government and the continual cost burdens that were imposed.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: Are you keeping a straight face while you say that?

Mr WILLIAMS: Not at all. I was frustrated with the continual cost burden that was imposed on local councils by this level of government through that continual interference. At this level of government, we often lament the failings of local government. The reality is that we should look in the mirror more regularly and, in a lot of matters, allow local councils to get on with the job which they are charged with under the legislation.

The first matter I want to talk about is the insertion of new section 13A, and this is just one of those areas where, in my opinion, we will be enforcing yet another burden on local government. This is supposedly to give the Electoral Commissioner the authority to carry out a publicity campaign to increase the vote at the local government level. To my mind, this is an exercise in money wasting. It is building another layer of bureaucracy, which will be paid for by ratepayers. More often than not the complaint from this level of government is that local council rates are too high, yet we would impose another level of cost on councils and impose it in such a way that it would be totally out of the control of the council (the elected members) to manage this cost.

Again, at this level, we lament the low voter turnout at local council elections. I am of the opinion that, if you give somebody the ability to vote and they choose not to exercise their right to vote, that may well indicate that they are satisfied with the status quo. It may well indicate that they are satisfied that their peers are doing a good job either in electing a council (a responsible body) or in standing for election, being elected and managing the district. That is the way I look at this matter.

If we try, through some artificial mechanism, to force people to go to a place of polling to vote when they do not particularly want to and they do not have any great interest, I do not know that that serves any great purpose at all, and I do not think it stands to improve the standard of decision-making at a local council level. It might make some of us feel a bit better—it might make us think that we are doing a grand thing—but in reality I think it is possibly doing the complete opposite. I do not believe that the Electoral Commissioner will, across the variety of councils that we have in South Australia, effectively encourage more people to vote. I question the cost of doing this. I have serious concerns about the sense of that particular clause.

The other series of clauses which particularly concerns me is the voters roll and the methodology used to put people who own land and who are thus ratepayers onto the roll if they are not resident within the council or ward. Traditionally, to be a voter on a council we had a situation where you needed to be a landholder. I know this is a particular hate of the Labor Party and, in some ways, I accept the points that it has made over generations about universal franchise. The reality is that still a large proportion of council revenues come from land-based rates, and I think it is only fair and reasonable that people who are contributing substantially to the cost of running the council should have some say in the way it is run.

I think for us to put roadblocks in the way of those people being on the roll is a detriment to good governance. Might I suggest that this is more about the government's wont to increase voter turnout than increasing the quality of both voting and the subsequent actions taken by councils. Making it more difficult for people both to get on the roll and stay on the roll will diminish the number of people on it, and thus the voter turnout will look bigger. I do not think this is designed to do much more than that, or further to fulfil the Labor Party's much-vaunted policy that everybody should have an equal say, whether or not they contribute in other ways, particularly financially. That is a philosophical argument and a philosophical difference between this side and the other side of the house, and it will continue.

As a body corporate, or a landowning ratepayer resident outside the council or the ward, having gone to the trouble of getting onto the roll, you will have to continue to do so prior to every election. For the roll to expire on 1 January in every election year is an absolute nonsense because those people who have made a conscious decision to be on the roll, to have a right to have their welfare represented at a council election, will, at the stroke of a pen, be taken off the roll, and they will have to put themselves back on it.

That seems to be a nonsense, and I seriously question the government's motives behind it. I strongly suspect that it is trying artificially to improve the voter turnout, and I think that is lamentable. I would be overjoyed if voter turnout improved at local council elections. However, having been a councillor before the last significant series of amalgamations that took place across the state, and having been an active follower of council matters in my hometown, I know that amalgamation is one of those things that has driven down the vote.

The beautiful thing about local government is the word 'local'. I have heard the Minister for Health say that the closer you make a decision to where the service is delivered the better the decision will be—that very minister has been key to the centralisation policies of this government—and the same thing applies to local government. I believe that we have taken the 'local' out of local government to a significant extent, and that has meant that people have lost interest.

People in a community 40, 50 or sometimes even 100 kilometres away from the seat of the council—and this is a contentious issue happening in their backyard—lose interest in what is happening. Those very same people had a much greater interest when the local council was seated in their small community, but that is just human nature.

I cannot see that the Electoral Commissioner running a campaign which will largely be based in the city at great cost will have an impact in small communities, such as those in my electorate, and Beachport comes to mind, where I served on the council for eight or nine years in the 1980s. I cannot see that an advertising campaign, with maybe a couple of ads in the local paper—something the local council already does—will make any difference to voter turnout.

What will make a difference to voter turnout in a place like Beachport are issues such as the lack of action to get the local boat ramp fixed up and sand management and the row between the local council and the state government about who is responsible for it. That is what will get voters out; whether the council can then achieve anything because of the intransigence of the state government is another matter. However, it is those local issues that drive people to vote. Making it difficult for people who pay rates to be on the roll and subsequently to vote detracts from the quality of local government.

The shadow minister did a very good job of putting the case for the opposition. I will not repeat all the matters he raised, but I did hear him talk about the length of term of local councillors. I served willingly on council when they were two year terms, which suited me at that time. I thought it was a retrograde step going to three year terms and I think it has been an even more retrograde step going to four year terms.

Quite often, we think young people would be a little more dynamic, but a four year commitment is a great thing in a young person's life. I think going beyond two year terms goes against what most of us would like to see; that is, greater representation from those people who are time poor. Women, particularly those with a family, and young men and women building their careers find it difficult to make a commitment of four years.

I do not know whether anyone has done a study on this issue, but it has always been difficult to get young people enthused about local government—particularly getting them involved in local government—and the longer the term the greater the disincentive for younger people to offer themselves up.

In my experience, I made a commitment for a two year term. During the first two year term I was more than happy to extend my time in local government, and I stood for another subsequent three terms. If it was a four year term, I may not have taken that decision in the first instance as a young man in my 20s.

I put those matters on the record. I briefly reiterate that continual fussing, changing and mucking around with the Local Government Act and the regulations and bullying local councils has not helped the relationship between this level of government and the local government sector or councillors carrying out their duties effectively. A lot of them carry out their duties looking over their shoulder to see whether abuse will be heaped on them from above or what sorts of obligations will be put in front of them, burdening them with extra work, extra obligations and extra cost.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:58): I support this legislation, subject to minor amendment as outlined by the shadow minister. I congratulate the shadow minister on his first legislation—

Mr Goldsworthy: No.

Mr VENNING: Anyway, he did it very well. I also support generally the Local Government Association—not everything it does, but most of it. I served 10 years on Crystal Brook council and got involved with the process—

Mr Williams: And survived it!

Mr VENNING: Certainly survived, and thrived, so much so that the council amalgamated with Red Hill and, after I left council, it further amalgamated with Port Pirie Regional Council. I have seen huge changes in the time I have been involved, as both a councillor and a state member of parliament.

We have seen big changes. In 1993 the Liberal government came into office and the Liberal government, under both Dean Brown and John Olsen—but mainly under Dean Brown—amended the Local Government Act to enable a whole new area in which local government could work. I think that was done in approximately 1995-96. I was directly involved with that legislation, and a lot of discussion was held back then.

We on this side of the house have a fair bit of experience in local government. Our leader, Isobel Redmond, was a councillor on Stirling council. She was very proactive in that role and made many headlines, not controversial but certainly noteworthy, particularly when there was conflict or discussion with the mayor—who is still the mayor. Also, I note that the member for MacKillop, who has just spoken, is a former mayor. The member for Goyder was a CEO of a council—and a very good one, to boot. The member for Finniss is a former mayor of Kangaroo Island. I have been a long-term member of local government and, of course, the member for Fisher was also a councillor. So there is a fair bit of expertise on this side of the house.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr VENNING: And, of course, the member for Light is an ex-mayor of Gawler (and soon to be returning to the role).

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: You'll be laughing on the other side of your face after 20 March.

Mr VENNING: I note the interjection, Madam Deputy Speaker, although I know that Cosie Costa is doing a fantastic job in Light.

In relation to the publicity campaign, this is probably the area that is causing a fair bit of controversy. Responsibility for promoting local government elections will be transferred from each individual council to the Electoral Commissioner. There are huge variations between councils as to how much is spent on election advertising and how effective the campaigns are. I am fully aware of this. So, to keep it fair and equitable, and I know the member for MacKillop does not agree with me, it needs to be controlled by an independent authority.

I have seen firsthand in some councils that it suits incumbent members not to advertise, especially with non-compulsory voting. Certainly that is an avenue for some manipulation of results, particularly for those who are comfortable sitting on councils (as I did for 10 years). They can say, 'We need to keep this low key. This is a club. Don't tell anyone. It doesn't matter if only 25 per cent turn out to vote. Don't advertise, keep it all quiet, and we'll look after each other.' Those days are past, and I believe that elections need to be promoted.

The member for MacKillop would say that this is probably another level of bureaucracy, and that could be argued. I believe the Electoral Commissioner has responsibilities. I have never had a beef with him, or her, or the department, and I have no problem with that at all. There should be independence, absolutely, and no-one argues about that.

Removing the property franchisee voters roll would make it appear as though they had achieved an increase in voter participation. I do not know why we would want to do that. I think it is just in relation to the State Strategic Plan that they wanted to increase that vote. We oppose this measure and want to retain the status quo, whereby councils are compelled to maintain a non-resident property franchisee roll. The Property Council also supports this proposal. The roll exists, so why would you want to change it? It is already there.

The purpose of the restriction on bodies corporate and groups is to prevent individuals voting multiple times in various capacities in the same election. The corporation or group would need to nominate someone to be a designated person. I have no problem with this, particularly where one of these nominees wants to be a candidate. That person has to be the named nominee of that group or corporation, otherwise all sorts of things can happen. We have no problem supporting that, because it is commonsense.

I move to the issue of prohibition of withdrawal of a candidate. This is a tricky one, and I do not agree with my party on this issue. It brings local government elections into line with the Electoral Act 1985 where the withdrawal of a candidate for medical reasons after the close of nominations would not lead to the failure of the election for that ward or in cases where a council does not have wards. The measure is supported by both the government and the opposition and, in fact, addresses an issue. However, I have some private reservations about this.

I think there has to be an umpire who would sit in judgment where a high profile candidate deliberately pulls out after nominations have closed to allow a mate who has no profile to be either elected unopposed or just walk straight into the job. It happens all the time. Someone sees a high profile candidate standing for election and says, 'She's popular and very effective. No, I won't stand.' A second person who has a lower profile is also contesting and, all of a sudden, the high profile person pulls out. I believe that the minister or someone should have the right to say, 'Whoa.' There ought to be an appeal basis to say, 'Hang on; that's not fair. We need to call it again.'

I absolutely think it is open to rorting. When members are about to retire from local government they will deliberately nominate again as a high profile candidate, get their friend to stand as a running mate and then drop out and leave them standing there, 'Oops', and feign sickness, or whatever. The minister smiles, but she can see this happening. I have been there, done that. We have been through this trick. It happens in this place—but I do not believe with my party.

This is on the record, and I will bet the minister comes back a short time after this legislation passes and will change it, because it will be rorted. The member for Fisher would know this; he spent a long time on council. If someone was about to retire from a council and was not too happy with who was going to replace them, you would nominate again, get a mate of yours to stand alongside you and look around and think, 'There's no-one else there,' and you would pull out and then, hello, you have an automatic councillor. I do not believe that is right: it is rorting. I hope that the minister—

Mr Piccolo: Then don't do it if it's rorting.

Mr VENNING: The member for Light says, 'Don't do it.' Is he referring to me as the member for Schubert? It will not happen, I can assure him, as long as I am of sound mind and body. However, it does happen, and I think the rules need to ensure that it cannot happen.

With respect to the publication of candidate statements, this provides a state wide website where the public can look up any candidate in any council district to find out more about them and their policies. There is no problem with that at all. The LGA would manage the website, and this section of the bill removes any liability from the LGA and the web hosts with respect to any candidate statements. It is a good idea. However, someone has to pay for it. We cannot expect local government to pick up the bill. It will in some cases (the hardware and everything else), but I think the running of it needs to be paid for externally. I think it is a good idea. We also have to question whether this measure needs to be in the legislation. The LGA should have some autonomy with respect to issues such as this. I do not believe that it should be in this legislation at all. Leave it to the LGA. We have provided guidelines, and it is up to them.

With respect to the publication of misleading material, the Electoral Commissioner has the power to request the withdrawal or retraction of a candidate's statement that is inaccurate or misleading (I presume in her or his judgment), and the failure to do so would lead to legal action. I have no problem with that. It is the same as our rules in this place: the Electoral Commissioner is the umpire.

The next point is the caretaker policy—this is a ripper. In my time I have seen some funny things happen in the caretaker period. A council voted to reappoint a CEO for another two year contract just before a council election, which has caused controversy in recent times (and we all know about that). Certain decisions should be prohibited during an election period. However, the LGA is opposed to this. I think we need to define quite clearly what is an election period. Is it just when the election is called or can it be, say, a period of one or two months before an election is due? It is almost a fixed term now, so you know when it will be held. Council planning should be such that they avoid these decisions during this period of time. If they were smart, that would not happen. So, I have no problem with that.

With respect to time for the drawing of lots, I do not believe this is necessary, because every council will be different. If an election takes place in the middle of harvest, in a country council, doing the ballots at 4 o'clock might not be very convenient. I think it is up to each council to make that decision there and then. I cannot see that being a problem or that it could be rorted.

The next point is reducing the time frame to provide campaign donations. We support that, because it is the same as we do in this place: it is automatic. With respect to campaign donation returns to be retained for four years, again, the opposition does not support four year terms.

Mr Goldsworthy: Yes, we do.

Mr VENNING: I don't, anyway. I have never supported four year terms for local government.

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Irrespective of that, I am not happy that it remains at four years. As the member for MacKillop just said, I believe four year terms are too long for what is essentially a volunteer service—far too long. In relation to the voters roll, the LGA is strongly in favour of candidates receiving an electronic copy of the voters roll. I do not have a problem with that, but apparently the government and the opposition both reject this. I cannot understand why, but I will not die in a ditch over it. It does not matter too much to me; I am just interested to know why that is the case.

We are proposing an amendment to reinstate three year terms of government, as the shadow minister said. I will certainly support that. The Liberal policy is to support three year terms. Essentially, councillors are still volunteers, as I said. I commend the Local Government Association for sticking to voluntary enrolment and voluntary voting, because I believe it works. It makes all councils more accountable. It is amazing—and I say this for the first time in my 19 year career. I was always in favour of voluntary voting, but once you become a member and are here for a while, it is very comfortable to sit behind compulsory voting, because you know almost exactly what the return will be. My vote does not fluctuate more than 4 or 5 per cent, but I can assure members that, if it was voluntary voting, it would fluctuate more than that.

If it was voluntary voting, I am sure we would all have to be more vigilant about what we are doing as sitting members, because compulsory voting certainly assists sitting members, no doubt about that. It is amazing how your point of view changes when you get into this place and you have been here for a few years. I have always been a believer in voluntary voting, and the LGA has proven that it works and I hope it long holds that view. It makes us all more accountable.

Can I also say how I feel about councils' DAPs? It is not quite on the subject, but I think it is relevant to say here—

Mr Piccolo interjecting:

Mr VENNING: No, DAPs, the planning groups. It was with the good intention of this house that it came in. There was much debate at the time by both sides. It came in under this government, I believe. We thought it was a good idea to bring in these panels where councils did not have the majority say and there was an independent chairman. Can I say, in hindsight, after road-testing this, it has not worked. It has failed because these panels can make decisions which the council does not support and the council has to pick up the tab, it has to pay the bills. Really, I believe that councils should always have control of things for which it has to pay. Many instances are happening now. They can come up with these grandiose schemes, knowing that the council will have to, first, accept the decision and, secondly, pay for it.

I stress that I take this opportunity to say that I am not happy about that. It is not right. I believe that the planning side of councils is the most important part, and this is why I am happy to support the introduction of an ICAC for councils, particularly in planning, because we all know of examples where the planning issue has been sort of rorted—a bit touchy. I know of one well-known case in my electorate, which I will not name, where there has been a rorting of the process.

I believe an ICAC is essential, especially in the planning area, because you only need to change the land use and look at what it does to the value of some of these properties. There are too many planning delays at the moment. I think we need legislation to assist that. We did have legislation to assist that—that is, to extradite the process—but it has not worked because we are still seeing huge delays.

Finally, I support more autonomy for local government. Many of these matters should be for their decision, independent of us as members of state parliament. I would support very much all those who serve on councils as volunteers right across the state. They put in a lot of time and effort, and 99 per cent of them are honourable and try to do their best.

I pay tribute also to the CEOs, even though some of us would say that some are getting very highly paid—and they are. The salary level of some CEOs is pretty high. I will name one, the CEO of the Barossa, David Morcom. He is paid a lot of money, but can I say that the guy is worth every cent he is paid, because he manages a very big and complicated council. The most important thing is that the council is getting it together; he is performing. I do not mind paying the money when people perform. Morcom was brought in at a difficult time for council; and can I say that, even though he is paid more than I am, he works well, he is respected and I have no problem with the money the council pays him, because he is worth it.

Finally, I pay tribute to the LGA itself, particularly the CEO, Wendy Campana. I appreciate her efforts. I notice that the AGM is this week, so that is appropriate. Hopefully, I will get down there very briefly. Finally, I congratulate the president, Felicity-ann Lewis, on the role she is carrying out. It is always a pleasure to meet her and discuss local government, because I have fond memories of it; and no doubt, when I leave this place in years to come, I will probably go back there.

Mr PICCOLO (Light) (12:16): I rise in support of the bill, and I would like to comment on a couple of the clauses. The first one I would like to discuss, and I also declare my interest in this matter, is the issue of being eligible to enrol and correcting the roll so that, when you are 18 on election day, you can vote. This was brought to the committee's attention and to the attention of the previous minister some years ago by my eldest son, who wanted to run for local council in 2006. He was born in October and, at that time, the elections were held in November—

An honourable member: Raffael?

Mr PICCOLO: Raffael; that is correct. If there had been a state election or a commonwealth election on the same day as the council election he could have run for the commonwealth or the state parliaments but was ineligible for local government, which I thought was a rather curious anomaly given that level of involvement. As I said, he could have been a state and a federal candidate but not a local council candidate, so this bill overcomes this problem. At the time, I remember my son writing to the LGA about this matter, and he got a three or four page letter back from the LGA justifying why it should be different.

I am glad to see that the government has not listened to the LGA on this issue, because clearly this is an area where if one is eligible for state and federal elections one should be eligible for council elections. That brings me to the issue of engaging young people in local government. Coincidentally, last night I went to a meeting of my local Youth Advisory Committee, which is part of the Gawler council, and we talked about what issues will impact on young people. The issue of voting was not raised. However, I am of the view that we need to engage young people in community affairs around school time, because once they disengage from the process it takes a long time to re-engage later in life.

You find that in a lot of community groups—whether it is local government or other community groups—you have this big age gap. You have some people of school age involved and then you have this age gap—some people do not get involved until their 40s and 50s. As with most community groups, particularly in Gawler, that average age is getting higher. The average membership age of one organisation in my council is about 75, which is not healthy in terms of the organisation's long-term viability.

The Hon. R.B. Such: And that is the youth group!

Mr PICCOLO: Yes. It is very important and we need to engage young people. At a personal level I think that, in the long term, we need to look at the possibility of lowering the voting age to attract younger people. I am not of the view that they are too immature or unable to make sound decisions, particularly at local government level. Over the last few months I have been mentoring a group of young people about a skate park issue, and certainly they showed quite a bit of understanding about how things work. We need to engage young people and I would be supportive of any measure to look and see whether it could be possible to involve young people more in local government.

The issue of voter turnout and non-participation is always a complex one, and I disagree with the member for MacKillop who wondered whether, if there is a low turnout, people are generally happy with the way things are going. I am not sure you can draw that conclusion. My experience has shown that, where people think there is no chance of change or way of improving things, they do not participate. They are more likely to participate and be involved when there is a chance that their vote will change things. The lower participation does not necessarily reflect that people are happy but rather dissatisfied with things, and often they feel powerless to change the way things are.

The issue of getting people active and voting in local government is very important and we need to look at those barriers. We need a better understanding, and getting the Electoral Commissioner involved is a good step as she has a lot of understanding of voter behaviour and how to influence it, and often marketing is important in getting the right messages out.

The issue of property franchise or enrolment of property owners who are not on the electoral roll was interesting. I listened to the arguments of the member for MacKillop. It sounded as though he would like to return to the good old days, where one actually had to own property before one could vote—a bit like the upper house prior to 1973!

The Hon. R.B. Such: Men only!

Mr PICCOLO: Perhaps men only! It sounded as though the member for MacKillop would like a return to the good old days, where one had to own property to be a voter. Generally speaking, that left out the left-leaning rabble and so on. He would like to return to the days when the upper house was full of conservatives; perhaps he wants our councils to look conservative as well. They are the natural leaders, so they think. They have a 'born to rule' mentality and I think he would like to go back to that.

On a serious note, we need to increase participation in local government because it is healthy to increase participation. In those council areas where there is an increase in participation, even though people do not like what the council does, they believe there is a way of changing things, so it is not unusual to have a higher turnout in country or smaller councils, because people believe their vote or participation will change things. We need to look at ways of improving the voter turnout.

With the issue of the four year term, I understand why some people would be a little uncomfortable with that as it is a big commitment. We need to move away from thinking that councils are still in the old 'tea and scones' days, when people upon retirement decided to fill in their time by sitting on the local council. Councils are complex institutions these days, and they make decisions that impact on people's lives, sometimes more so than does state parliament from time to time. We need to ensure that people understand the decisions they make and that they are better trained, and all those things take time.

I was in local government for almost 25 years and after that time I still had an enormous amount to learn: the more I was in local government the more I realised how much I did not know about how it worked, and things change. People who think they can go on to council for two years and then move on are kidding themselves and not making a commitment or contribution required of local government today.

I went on to council back in 1981, and I was asked recently what has happened over that time. I am sure the member for Goyder will support me when I say that the professionalisation of the staff has increased considerably in those years. People are now generally tertiary educated and a whole range of things. In most organisations you would now have a qualified engineer, a qualified accountant, a CEO with a degree in something, and a whole range of qualified staff. When you look at people who run for councils, it has not changed much in 20 years, so we have this big intellectual gap between the administrative wing and the political wing of the council, and that is a problem because often councils find it hard to cope with the information and with understanding issues.

That is why I do not believe that reducing the term by two years will deliver better local government. It may attract people who think they can get in for two years and do it but they really cannot. I think that will diminish the quality of local government if people are not able to make a commitment by that time, because it does take a long time to learn and to understand. I am still in touch with a lot of people in local government who come to me to talk about things. Some of them have been there for three or four years but they still do not know some of the basics because it is a huge job to be in local government today.

I would very much counsel against the view that it is just a bit of volunteering. Yes, the people who do that work are, in essence, volunteers but the job cannot be compared to volunteering in other community groups and organisations, because the issues involved are more complex; there are decisions required, and a large amount of reading and understanding is involved. It can impact on people's lives in a much bigger way than perhaps involvement in other committee groups.

With those few comments, I support the bill and put on the record my view that local government is very important. As a sphere of government, it is one which impacts on people's lives, and that is why we need to get it right.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:26): I wish to make a brief contribution to this bill and I do so on the basis of recognising the precis that has been put together by the shadow minister, the member for Kavel, and the contributions made by other members in this chamber.

I wish to bring the perspective that I have, having being an employee of local government for some 27 years. During that time, on quite a few of those occasions, I was the returning officer for the area and, therefore, the person who had to run the elections (prior to the Electoral Commissioner being involved) and the person who had to coordinate the counting of the votes—and quite often I did that myself. That gives me a perspective on not only how local government works but how the election process works. I understand that it is challenging—there is no doubt about that. It is very difficult, in some circumstances and in some localities, to get people really interested in local government and to be prepared to vote in an informed fashion.

When I talk to people anywhere about voting the one thing I stress for them is to be sure to vote in an informed way and that they understand the relative merits of the candidates who may be standing, and the groups or political parties to which they belong, as well as the principles they bring to it. There is no distinction, that I see, between state or federal government and local government because it is about a collection of individuals having the opportunity to vote, and you have to ensure that you put the right person there.

In relation to local government, it is difficult to engage the community to make sure that it takes the fullest opportunity provided by living in a democracy that encourages people to vote. Across metropolitan areas the voter turnout has been relatively low and that is disappointing for people in local government, who would prefer to see a larger number of people voting.

Having experienced it quite often in regional South Australia, I have seen voter turnout in the 50 to 70 per cent range, which is exceptional. That probably reflects the potentially closer engagement that local government has in some regional communities compared to the metropolitan area. However, it is also fair to say that in recent years voter participation has been decreasing as our society has tended to be not as closely related to local government: 30 years ago there were rallies in the street about any proposal to amalgamate councils.

What occurred in 1995-97 still resulted in a lot of people being concerned about the amalgamation process but they were more accepting of it because it meant good quality service at the lowest possible cost; it is all part of the whole thing. Any bill that brings forward proposals to support the greater engagement of communities and ensure that as many resources as possible are put into getting people to vote is a good one. I know there is difference of opinion about this but the Liberal Party is very supportive of any process that does that.

I suppose that is why I was a little bit concerned when I read the proposal, in a briefing paper put together by the shadow minister, whereby the property franchise voters roll could be removed on 1 January following any local government election. That disappoints me because I know that an enormous effort goes into the maintenance of that roll to ensure that it reflects opportunities for non-resident property owners to vote in the area in question.

It is easy to say that those people are not engaged with the community, but I can assure you that that is not correct in all circumstances. In one of the councils within the Goyder electorate, in the District Council of Yorke Peninsula, something like 40 per cent of properties in that council area (I think that numbers some 12,000 or 13,000) are owned by non-residents.

When 5,000 or 6,000 properties are owned by people from outside the area, those people still want to have an input into the activities of the council. They can do that via letters to the editor in the local press, and that opportunity is taken up quite often. But, importantly, they want to make sure that they are involved in a process of electing the people who make decisions on their behalf and who have control of substantial dollars—and in the case of that council, the amount involved is probably getting towards $23 million now. A substantial amount of the council's revenue comes out of these people's pockets, with rates in that council area amounting to more than $10 million. If it is the responsibility of all of these people to pay, I think it is fair enough that they be provided with the opportunity to vote.

The bill, as I understand it, does not remove the opportunity to vote, but it requires each of the property owners to nominate to be on the role for every four year cycle. That is a process where the concern I have is really expressed. Yes, I understand that the opportunity is still there but, unless it is foremost in people's mind and they remember whether they did it last year—or whether they did it for the last election, or they are not aware of the legislative change—they might just presume they are still on the property franchise voters role. Then, when it comes to the period close to the election, it is too late to make any change. They wait patiently for their postal vote to arrive, and when it does not, they contact the council to find out what is going on. They will then be told, 'Sorry, legislative change went through the parliament in 2009 that now requires you to nominate for each four year cycle,' and that will give some people a lot of concern.

I know that the position has been put by the shadow minister, but the opposition does not support that clause in the bill. Certainly, it is relevant that the property details remain the same, so that if a transfer occurs those people are automatically removed from the role if they do not own the property any more. However, our position is that, where property ownership exists, nomination to the role continues until withdrawn either voluntarily or in the case where a person no longer has property interests in the area. It is not just the Yorke Peninsula councils that are involved: many councils among the 68 councils in South Australia have a very large proportion of non-resident property owners. So, I would hope that there is an opportunity to review that part of the bill.

I also want to talk about the term of representation on council. The member for Light referred to this issue and, no doubt, other members have referred to it also. These days, being an elected member on a council is an enormous challenge, both time-wise and intellectually. In relation to the people skills required, it is a very similar situation to that required of a member of parliament in that you are the public face of an organisation. You are elected by a group of people and there are certain challenges in place; and you are elected with very high expectations—and it will never work out perfectly.

Having worked within local government for many years, I have certainly seen many instances where councils have made every effort to make absolutely the best decision, with the information presented to them, but there will always be sections of the community that will be upset by the decision made, whether it be in terms of a wrong priority in relation to expenditure or a development approval of some kind, possibly involving a development plan amendment report that provides scope for an opportunity for a development. It will never be the case that people will be happy all the time. In itself, getting people in the first place to nominate for local government presents an enormous challenge.

The people within councils I have talked to consider it is a wonderful honour to serve on a council. They know that it consumes an enormous amount of their time, but it is a commitment they are prepared to make. I was very surprised when the term of office was extended to four years. Within the regional area where I worked—that is, the central region of Yorke Peninsula, extending to Quorn and all the way across to Burra and the communities in between—it was something of a great surprise that the term was extended from three years to four years.

I think it would be fair to say that, while existing members might be more comfortable with the extension of the term, it will be quite difficult to get new people who will be prepared to nominate for council when it will be for such a long period—and it is these new people we need to continually encourage to become involved in the process. Councils demand a change of thought process. I have always thought that the best councils operate better when there is a diversity of opinion, where recommendations from staff are challenged and questioned and real thought goes into decisions and there is not just a resounding 'Yes' every time a recommendation is put up.

While it is easy to have some personal tensions involving elected members who might challenge staff, I have always supported the fact that every elected member should have the right—and, indeed, should demand the right—to question recommendations, actions and decisions.

The issue will be that it is very difficult to upskill oneself, to be in a position to do that and have the confidence to do that. While some would say that that in itself demands a longer period in office, and therefore four years is an optimum time, I think certainly in South Australia the lives of people are increasingly becoming so much busier that it is hard to get that level of commitment.

That is why, once you are elected, you might think, 'Four years, I can actually deal with' but as a potential candidate, debating the impact upon the family, one's own opportunity to work, arrangements with children, associations with other sporting or community groups and then having a knowledge of what the impact actually is of becoming involved in local government, they think, 'Three years; I could live with that. Two years might be even better, three years I could live with, but four years is too long for me to commit to.'

My great fear is that the current term prevents many really good people from nominating, and we need really good people. It has traditionally been dominated by more of a retired age group or people who are able to fund their involvement in it because, while the remuneration received by elected members is subject to a lot of debate in the community, it does not compensate them fully for the effort that they put in. There are some issues there, and I support the shadow minister in his comments in regard to the term of office that he has flagged.

The final comment I wish to make is in relation to the caretaker provisions, and I must admit that I am rather interested in this. Having worked in local government and understanding that the process is that there is quite a large degree of delegation that occurs between elected members and the CEO and then in turn to the officers of the council, I know that the delegation that occurs is only based upon budget provisions that are put in place and the policy decisions that have been previously made, and there is very little discretionary opportunity.

So I think that, yes, I can understand that a caretaker policy provision can apply as it relates to decisions that elected members can make because they have to ensure that they act appropriately but, from what I have seen certainly with the professional members—and the member for Light referred to the increasing quality of the professional staff of local government—these people know that they operate within restrictions provided to them by the members who are elected by the community.

I agree, and the example provided to me in respect of a decision on the employment and remuneration of a CEO within what is defined now as the caretaker period is rather surprising. I am personally disappointed that a council would make that decision, because I think that is beyond the scope of what their authority might have been at that time but, in relation to the absolute majority of the actions of council—the works procedures of councils, the policies of councils and the role that they undertake—I do not think the caretaker policy period is relevant.

The debate that has occurred this morning has been quite heartening. It shows that there are a lot of people within this house who have strong opinions about local government, and I know that the opposition very much supports local government and what it brings to the community.

I am fearful of the position other members in the chamber might take on occasion, I must admit, having been involved in some committees where it has been debated, but, in the many years that it has operated across all of incorporated South Australia, local government has proven itself to be the forum through which important services and activities are undertaken.

The challenges to local government now are changing a bit, moving away from the traditional role—still having those infrastructure and service roles but now social conscience issues to deal with, too. However, I am sure that local government will hold its head high for many years to come and serve the community of South Australia well.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for Families and Communities, Minister for Northern Suburbs, Minister for Housing, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability) (12:39): I thank members for their contribution to the debate on this legislation. The government undertook comprehensive consultation and this legislation is based on a very comprehensive report prepared for the government. It is fair to say that it is a report of high quality and, in saying that, I would like to publicly thank the Hon. Ian Hunter from another place and Margaret Wagstaff for the incredible amount of work that they put into preparing this report for the government.

To those opposite, should they ever find themselves in government again, I would say that it was a real lesson in community consultation. They did not just go out and talk to councils, as important as that is: they talked to a whole range of community organisations, interest groups and young people. We just heard from the member for Light about the interest of his son, Raffael, and the impact that that had. Being encouraged to make a submission, his interest has resulted in some legislative change around young people wanting to be involved in local government.

I also thank the Local Government Association, which was an active participant in this whole process. The review was done in concert with the LGA, which was also on the reference group that guided the consultation and development of the report. We appreciate the support for the bill, generally, from members opposite, although we are now debating a whole raft of amendments that have already been debated in the upper house, for which we were not given notice, but that is beside the point. They were lost in the upper house, but we are happy to have that debate again and for them to have another go. That is, I guess, what democracy is all about.

Listening to the concerns raised by those opposite, you do have to raise your eyebrows just a little. Clearly, the issue around the Electoral Commission actively promoting involvement in local government elections is causing them quite some concern. I do not know how anyone in their right mind could argue against the promotion of involvement in an election process or oppose the promotion of people being actively involved in their community and taking a real interest. It really does defy logic.

The member for MacKillop told us that it was a waste of money. Goodness gracious me! He does not have a problem with local governments spending extraordinary amounts of money going out and seeking people who need to be on the roll and trying to actively engage them. It is one of the areas that local governments themselves are very concerned about. He does not think it is a waste of money saying to people, 'If you want to be on this roll, being a non-resident, you need to register', but he thinks it is a waste of money educating people about local government, the impact they might have on their community and how they might be involved.

The fact of the matter is that the turnout for local government is inadequate. I think at the last election there was a turnout of around 30 per cent, or a little over. In our largest councils—the 13 councils, which represent something like 800,000 people—there was a 30 per cent turnout. Some of those councils spend something like—this came out of the consultation done by Margaret Wagstaff—$300 promoting the elections.

Mr Griffiths: $300?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Yes, $300. With multimillion-dollar budgets, they spend about 2¢ per elector. In whose interest is that? You have to ask yourself: is that democracy at work? I do not think anyone could argue that. The member for MacKillop claimed that we were forcing people to go to the poll and vote. Well, we are not doing that either. What we are asking in this legislation is for the Electoral Commissioner to be able to promote an election and the benefits of being involved. No one is being forced to vote, and it has been some time since people have had to go to the poll and vote; so, the member for MacKillop needs to update his information.

There is clearly some dispute amongst the ranks about some of the opposition's amendments. I draw the member for Schubert's attention to clause 6, which amends section (7), in relation to the failure of an election in certain circumstances. This clause deletes the subsections that permit a candidate to withdraw after the close of nominations, which, I understand, is exactly what he was arguing for. It means that only a candidate's death can stop an election.

The change has been made because of a concern that the current provisions may allow a candidate to manipulate elections—and, I understand from what he was saying that that is what he was involved in during his time in local government—by arranging for a colleague with a known medical condition to nominate as a rival and then later withdraw. Intimidation of a rival is also a potential risk. Under the current provisions either of these scenarios would force the election to be abandoned and would require a supplementary election to be held at a later date.

The proposed change would bring local government elections into line with state parliament and commonwealth parliament elections. I think that addresses the concerns raised by the member for Schubert. No longer—when he leaves this house and decides to run for local government again, should that take his fancy—will he be able to manipulate an election, as he indicated he has done in the past.

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: No; he did. He said, 'That's what we did.' If I am wrong then I am happy to correct the record, but that was certainly my understanding of what he was saying. There is some concern about the election cycle. The opposition wants to revert to a three year election cycle before the first ever four year term is finished. It has not even allowed the first four year term to finish before it wants to amend the legislation to revert back to three years.

There is a concern about people not nominating, that they would be happy for two years or maybe three years but not four years. If you look back at the nominations from the last election, I might be wrong here, but I do not think we had a drop in nominations. There was some concern among older members, and some people in their late 60s and 70s decided not to run, but I understand that during the consultation period not one submission was received from a person who wanted to revert to a three year election cycle.

I would urge that, before the opposition comes into this place with amendments to legislation, it consult with a wide range of communities, not just a couple of meetings here or there but actually get a real feel of what the community wants and what the feeling of those people involved in local government is, those who are actually in there for this first four year term. I look forward to further debate on these amendments as we work through the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

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

Page 3, line 11 [clause 4, inserted definition of designated person]—Delete 'majority' and substitute: '16'

I regard this as a test amendment because if it fails, which I understand that it will, because there are two Tory parties represented in this chamber, then I will not pursue the rest of the amendments, because they would be redundant.

This is an unfortunate situation, because the government and the opposition have indicated to me by that they do not support including young people. I thought this government had a policy of social inclusion, but obviously that does not relate to young people, and that is very disappointing.

If Don Dunstan were alive today I think he would be absolutely horrified that here we have two conservative parties—one very conservative and the other one almost as conservative—which are denying young people the opportunity to have a vote in local government. The world is not going to end. Germany is not falling apart; nor are the other countries that already do it.

This state used to pioneer reform. Back in the 1850s it actually gave Aboriginal men the right to vote, and it gave Aboriginal and European women the right to vote back in the 1890s. Sadly the other states were racist, and when we had Federation they would not allow Aboriginal people to have the vote; Aboriginal people had to wait for over 50 years for the right to vote in federal elections because of the racist and intolerant attitudes of the other states. South Australia was a pioneer, giving Aboriginal men and women the right to vote, and the people of that day, who brought that about, are to be commended. In fact, in this chamber we acknowledge the quest to give women the vote.

The same arguments that were used to deny women and Aboriginal people the vote are now being used to deny young people the vote; 'They don't know what they are doing; they're ignorant, they don't understand.' The same nonsense that we heard in relation to Aboriginal people and women is now trotted out in relation to young people. I have seen some of the silly comments made by one or two councillors who trot out the nonsense that young people are not mature enough. Well, a lot of young people are, at the age of 16 or 17, a lot smarter than some of the older people who can vote in council elections. In fact, you can vote in council elections even if you have dementia. That is a great start, isn't it?

South Australia also pioneered the secret ballot. Commissioner Boothby developed it and then Victoria introduced it before South Australia did; nevertheless it was invented here. This state was way ahead of other states and way ahead of the rest of the world. In fact, it was called the Australian secret ballot, and it was developed right here in South Australia. Yet when we have an opportunity for a minor concession to young people, to allow them to participate and engage in local government, we say, 'Not now.' Why not? We used to have a property franchise in this state. We still have an age-based franchise.

You can get a licence at 16 or 17, you can join the military at 17 in certain occupations, you can consent to medical treatment, but you are not allowed to vote in a council election. How ridiculous and insulting to young people out there. At the next election I do not want to hear the major parties come out and say that they support young people: they do not. They have to be classified as anti-young people, because they are not prepared to give them a vote. It is disgraceful.

I heard the minister say that this is democracy at work. This is not democracy at work. Democracy is when you give people a chance to have a say in things that affect their lives. Local government always claims to be local and near the people; well, if that is the case then it would be the closest to young people in terms of facilities, cycle ways and skate parks. However, if you look around the community you will find that there are plenty of facilities for senior citizens, because people are keen to capture their vote, but there are very few facilities provided for young people in the metropolitan area, in particular, as well as the country. Why? It is because they have no real voice. All they have is the condescending opportunity to participate in some forum or discussion. It is outrageous that in this day and age we treat young people, who want to get involved, that way.

If they get involved at an early age then it is likely that they could become councillors in their early 20s, before family and commitments tie them down. What you get now in local government is an increasingly ageing population of elected members. You do not get many young people in local government at all—and why would you? If you get them involved at an earlier age, 16 or 17, it is likely that by the time they are in their early 20s some of them will be participating as elected members.

This is a wasted opportunity. Margaret Wagstaff's inquiry did not recommend against allowing 16 and 17 year olds to participate—it was neutral on the position—which one would take to mean that there is no strong opposition to it. This is a very disappointing outcome for young people. As I said at the start, I think Don Dunstan would be horrified—as would Steele Hall, someone else who was pretty progressive in electoral matters—to think that this chamber, which took a long time to give women the vote, is still procrastinating and denying young people a vote. I have moved my amendment but I know the fate of it. Sadly, young people can make their own decision in the March election.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I thank the member for Fisher for his amendment which I understand was also moved in the upper house by the Hon. David Winderlich.

The Hon. R.B. Such: Not my amendment; he works independently.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Did he try to steal your thunder maybe? He got wind of what you were doing. Never mind; that happens. You want to keep your ideas closer to your chest otherwise he will be jumping all over them. The member for Fisher referred to the report, saying it was neutral on this issue. In fact, the report quoted the member for Fisher on this subject but it also noted that, of all the hundreds of people they consulted, there were only three other people who thought this might be a good idea.

The legislation has been amended to allow 17 year olds to enrol so that they can vote should they turn 18—a proposal, as we have heard, that was put up by Raffael Piccolo. So, the government does take notice of young people. We are very active in promoting young people's participation.

The Hon. R.B. Such interjecting:

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: To call that condescending is just nonsensical. The member for Fisher might be better off promoting those people who are eligible to vote to get out and vote.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

New clause 4A.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I move:

Page 3, after line 17—Insert:

4A—Substitution of section 5

Section 5—Delete the section and substitute:

5—Periodic elections

Elections to determine the membership of each council must be held in accordance with this Act at intervals of 3 years on the basis that voting at the elections will close at 5pm on the last business day before the second Saturday of November in 2010, at 5pm on the last business day before the second Saturday of November in 2013, and so on.

This clause inserts a new clause 4A, substituting section 5. It is in relation to periodic elections. This is the issue about conducting local government elections in a three-year cycle, not four years. I want to make a couple of points in relation to this and I take some issue with some of the comments the minister made in her concluding remarks to the second reading. In her usual aggressive manner she told the state Liberals that we should go out and consult on this matter.

I remind the minister that extensive consultation was carried out when this proposal to change the term from three years to four years was first put before the house a number of years ago. If the minister would like to go back and research this issue, there was considerable concern in the community about amending the term of local government from three years to four years. Consistent with our position on this side of the house then, as now, we believe that a three-year term is more suitable for local government elections. There are some reasons for that.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.


[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]


PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT