HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-06-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Local Government (Elections) (Voting) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (10:31): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Local Government (Elections) Act 1999. Read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (10:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

It is a great pleasure to rise to present this bill to the parliament and I hope that the House of Assembly and particularly the Minister for Local Government, the member for Frome, decides to support it.

Even though some might argue that it is a relatively minor matter, for a person who believes profoundly in democracy and the need to support an opportunity for so many people to have that chance to determine where their preference lies when it comes to an opportunity to vote for those who represent them—local government being a key sector in our state—I think this amendment, while relatively minor, is an important one.

I might just take a little bit of time to explain the genesis of how I have reached this and part of the argument that I will be putting into the house about why I hope they support it. There were amendments in 2009, as I understand it, instigated by the then minister from another place (Hon. Gail Gago), which changed the situation. My intention is to simply remove from the current act subsections 15(5a) and (5b).

It was the inclusion of these subsections in 2009 which actually changed the system somewhat dramatically for those people who are not permanent residents within a council but do, by virtue of owning property within a council area or as a lessee of a building premises from which a business operates in that area—

Ms Redmond: A ratepayer.

Mr GRIFFITHS: As a ratepayer, most certainly, as the member for Heysen notes. Those people are put on a thing that I have commonly called a supplementary roll. There is a more official term for it, but for me it is a second roll that the Local Government Authority maintains which ensures that those people, by virtue of those interests, are provided with an opportunity to vote.

In past years, once you had registered for the opportunity to vote in that way, you were maintained on the roll continuing beyond any individual term of that Local Government Authority and therefore when subsequent elections were held, be they by-elections or full council elections, you were entitled to vote according to those rights.

The 2009 amendments changed that rather significantly for 67 of the 68 councils in South Australia. For the Adelaide City Council it was deemed not to implement this change, but for the other 67—metropolitan and regional councils—there was suddenly a need (for every four years of the electoral cycle from 1 January when the election was to be held) to completely forego the previous role and basically start from scratch. That means that in most cases contact would have to be made with those property owners or business operators in those areas to remind them of the opportunity for them to register on this supplementary roll and therefore receive their voting entitlements which are done by mail. Otherwise they missed out on their chance.

Statistically, as part of the evidence that I have gathered in presenting this bill to the parliament, the response rate has been rather poor, and I think that is frustrating. It is not because of the fact that people do not want to exercise their democratic rights, but through the busy lives that they lead I think there is some level of frustration about the need to re-enrol at the time of every electoral cycle. By removing those two subclauses (5a) and (5b), this bill provides for an opportunity for continuing enrolment to occur.

I do recognise that when the debate occurred in 2009, in both chambers, the shadow minister for local government at that time was the member for Kavel. The member at that time did propose amendments quite similar to my proposed amendments which were not supported by the minister or indeed, by the government.

Mr Goldsworthy: Shame!

Mr GRIFFITHS: The member for Kavel says 'Shame,' and I think that is a great shame that it was not supported at that time. From our point of view, and indeed from the feedback to the opposition at that time, we considered that it was a relatively poor change. That is why we are standing up some five years' later and suggesting that we go back to what has existed in the past, which worked quite well. It does create some administrative effort, I must admit, in the maintenance of the roll, but there is far less effort, in my judgement, in the preparation of the roll in the very first place.

If I can quote you some examples: I put on the record that I am a property owner in the City of Port Adelaide Enfield council area. Earlier this year I received from them a notice reminding me—as a non-resident property owner and therefore not normally on the roll entitling me to vote in council elections—that it was my right to re-enrol. I commend them on that. I certainly commend every council—and I believe it is probably all 67 that are impacted by this—to be in contact with their property owners and those eligible to re-enrol regarding the importance of doing that. To me it comes back to community engagement and voter turnout and that all links into better democratic principles.

Port Adelaide Enfield Council has done that, and I have exercised my right. I replied and said that for the property in which I hold the interest I do wish to register that right to vote. Mysteriously, and wonderfully, by the time the roll closes on 8 August—I think that is the date—I will be included in the supplementary roll and therefore given the right to vote in the November elections.

As part of the consultation that I and the opposition have done on this, we have contacted all 68 councils and the Adelaide City Council for some feedback. We have received responses from 19 of those councils and a separate response from the Local Government Association. Of the 19 individual councils that replied, only one has chosen not to support it and that was Campbelltown City Council. I am advised by letter that it has tested its policy quite often in the past and it has continuously decided not to support it. I have received an overwhelming response back from other local government authorities offering their support.

It was not just council that the opposition chose to consult with—we have also gone to the Rundle Mall Management Authority, the South Australian Federation of Residents and Ratepayers Associations, the Property Council of South Australia and Business SA. We thought that as representatives of all sectors, they are a reasonable cross-section. It is fair to say I have been disappointed by the lack of responses from them, and I am not sure if that means that they are happy with the change or they do not want to change.

But the overwhelming position put to me by local government which, in effect, is impacted by this more than anyone else, is that it is supportive of it. There are some qualifiers in it though and I do recognise that. That is why the bill before us actually has an implementation dated 1 January 2015.

There were concerns raised by quite a few of the councils that the process of approval by the parliament, and therefore the very tight time frame that exists between them occurring and the closure of the roll in August, would make it an extreme burden and rather difficult to complete, so they have asked for the implementation to be delayed until after this election. In recognising that need for some negotiations to occur, I have agreed to that, a bit reluctantly, because my hope would have been that, with other rolls existing up until 31 December 2013, it would have been an easy process to roll over, but I have recognised the change and made that so.

I can quote a few practical examples to you where the changes were really enforced to me. Prospect City Council, for example, referred to the fact that within their estimate of the number of people who would be entitled to the maximum to vote in this way through being a member of the supplementary roll, they have something like only 1 per cent. I think that that is extremely disappointing in that, even though they are advised of the fact they need to re-enrol, the community is not doing that in such a large number, therefore resulting in such a small number exercising their democratic principles.

They are voting in support of it because it allows them to have a continuing message of the benefit of enrolling once and that enrolment continuing, which will ensure not only a better turnout when it comes to postal voting later in the year but, indeed, it might translate into the quality of people who nominate to serve on councils, too.

That is what I am linking it back to: not just the ability of the voter to exercise the principles available to them but also into the level of representation received. I think that the more people are involved in the democratic discussions about where opportunities exist, the better chance of people deciding to stand up and be involved. There are many members from both sides of this chamber who have served in local government, and I think they have all walked away with a few frustrations, no doubt, but with a lot of positives from what they have done for the community, too.

I might take the time to summarise some of the responses received just to highlight the level of support metro and regional areas have given for it. The District Council of Streaky Bay was supportive; the Rural City of Murray Bridge was supportive; the District Council of Ceduna was supportive; the Tatiara District Council is also supportive. They have highlighted that (and this is dated 14 May, so it is little bit out of date) the fact that, at the time of their having sent out the notices to the people who are potentially able to re-enrol on the supplementary roll, out of the 906 forms that went out only 36 have come back so far. So, that is about one-third of a per cent. Hopefully, that has improved a lot. They have also enforced the fact that, at the 2011 AGM of the Local Government Association, they wrote to the then minister for state/local government relations asking for the automatic re-enrolment of property franchisees to be returned. So, for them it has been a long-held position.

For the City of Port Adelaide Enfield, they are supportive. Indeed, they noted that, between 2006 and 2010, they lost 10,000 voters as a result of changes to this legislation. I am amazed at that; it just shows that people who once held a right had gone through the effort but they just did not do it again. I think it is terribly disappointing that a legislative change removed that right to vote for so many people (10,000).

The District Council of Yankalilla were supportive. Indeed, I have received a submission from Mr Greg Mackie very supportive of this. He is someone I believe must hold a property right at Yankalilla, where a supplementary election was held early in 2014. Because it was after the loss of those previous supplementary roll voting rights, I think that it was in the teens, the number of people who were on that; therefore, it was a fraction of the people who only two months before would have been entitled to a vote had lost that right. Again, I think this is a very poor example of the impact of the legislation. I commend the Yankalilla council for supporting it.

I have held a meeting with the Deputy Lord Mayor of the City of Adelaide, and she certainly indicated her support for that. The Local Government Association has also indicated its support. It is rather interesting that, when you read the 2009 debate about the bill, the LGA seemed to be in step with the then minister for state/local government relations about the change occurring, but they have changed. David O'Loughlin, as mayor of Prospect and also president of the Local Government Association—

Mr Pengilly: And Labor Party candidate.

Mr GRIFFITHS: And Labor Party member and candidate for the City of Adelaide electorate, who is obviously not here. They have asked that 2015 be the commencement date, and that is what I have agreed to.

The District Council of Franklin Harbour are supportive. The City of Prospect, as I indicated before, are supportive and, indeed, the 1 per cent response rate from the January 2010 for re-enrolment shows some good support. The Town of Walkerville are supportive. The City of Charles Sturt are also supportive, and I am aware that they have written a letter to the Minister for Local Government (Hon. Geoff Brock) indicating that. The Regional Council of Goyder are supportive. As previously mentioned, Campbelltown City Council were opposed to it (that is a long-held policy), and Light Regional Council are supportive. The City of Victor Harbor are supportive, on the basis that it comes in for the election after this next one.

Mid Murray Council apologised for the fact that they were not able to have it considered at a council meeting, and they have highlighted that, in a regional council area, they lost 4,848 voters as a result of the 2009 changes. It shows the high level of non-resident property owners within that council area who have not taken up their right again, and that is a loss to democracy, I believe very strongly. Wakefield Regional Council are supportive. The District Council of Lower Eyre Peninsula noted the proposal but did not actually provide any feedback on it. The Renmark Paringa Council are supportive, also.

I know there are some privately held views by some members of the government, which I hope allows minister Brock to indicate his support for it. I must admit that I am not sure whether this is a minister Brock responsibility or a minister Rau responsibility. There are some levels of delegation in the Local Government Act that are not entirely clear. We hope that minister Brock stands up quite strongly and indicates his support for this, as a person from a regional community who has strong interest in all regional South Australia—as he talks about in the media all the time.

This has been shown clearly in the consultation that has occurred on the bill and the very strong support that exists in the regions and the metropolitan areas for it, and I think it is a rather simple change to be made to the legislation which will create some profound differences to the opportunity for people to exercise their most basic of rights, that is, the opportunity to vote for those who represent them.

We in this chamber recognise the importance of local government and ensuring that it has the best chance to exercise that challenge before it by having as many people as possible vote. It is a simple fact, and I urge the house to support the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Vlahos.

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