HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2023-02-22 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Local Government (Casual Vacancies) Amendment Bill

Standing Orders Suspension

The Hon. G.G. BROCK (Stuart—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Roads, Minister for Veterans Affairs) (15:32): I move:

That standing and sessional orders be so far suspended as to enable the introduction of a bill without notice and passage through all stages without delay.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Brown): An absolute majority of members not being present, ring the bells.

An absolute majority of the whole number of members being present:

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:34): The opposition supports the motion.

Motion carried.

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. G.G. BROCK (Stuart—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Roads, Minister for Veterans Affairs) (15:34): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Local Government Act 1999. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. G.G. BROCK (Stuart—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Roads, Minister for Veterans Affairs) (15:35): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Local Government (Casual Vacancies) Amendment Bill 2023 will amend the Local Government Act 1999, to amend section 54 of the Local Government Act, to retrospectively restore to office those council members whose position had become vacant due to their failure to submit their campaign donations returns on time.

Before I further explain the effect of this bill, I would like to state my disappointment that it is necessary at all. As I noted in my ministerial statement on 9 February, it is the responsibility of all members to make sure that they lodge their returns within the time frame.

I note that there have been numerous public references to new requirements, and I am advised that there were two changes to these requirements for the 2022 periodic elections that were made through the Statutes Amendment (Local Government Review) Act 2021.

The first was to require all candidates to lodge an additional return shortly after nominations had closed and before voting had begun so that voters could see which candidates had received donations and, if they had, from whom. This was strongly supported at the time as this information can be critical to voters' decisions about who they wish to vote for.

The second change was to require all candidates to lodge their returns with the Electoral Commissioner rather than with a chief executive officer of the relevant council. I am also advised that this change was requested by the local government sector through the reform work that led up to the 2021 amendment act, and was also supported by the Local Government Association. The change reflected a view across local government that all aspects of council elections should be managed by the Electoral Commissioner as an independent body, such as is the case for state elections. I am also advised that other aspects of campaign donations returns remain unchanged through the amendment act.

In particular, the trigger within the Local Government Act that has caused the vacancies that have necessitated this bill has been in place for the life of the act—more than 20 years. However, before the 2022 periodic elections, I understand that this clause had never been triggered before—that there had been 100 per cent compliance across 68 councils for six periodic and many supplementary elections.

I am not going to speculate on the reasons for the failure of the 45 members whose positions were made vacant to lodge their returns in time. Many have made applications to the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) for restoration to office, which SACAT may do if it is satisfied that the failure was due to circumstances beyond a member's control. The reasons put forward by members may therefore be considered in this context. However, my strong view is that it is not acceptable that their communities and ratepayers may have to bear the trouble and the cost of replacing a large number of council member positions.

To prevent this, the bill proposes to amend section 54 of the Local Government Act to retrospectively effectively 'disapply' the provisions that automatically make a member's position vacant when they have not lodged a return within one month of the statutory deadline for doing so (which is 30 days after the conclusion of the election) by deeming the vacancies to have not occurred. To prevent any confusion that may result from a retrospective disapplication of the vacancy of council member positions, the bill also makes other amendments to the Local Government Act to ensure that acts and decisions by these members and their councils are not invalid due to the change.

The bill also clarifies that the 45 members in question should receive their allowances and other entitlements as they were entitled to over this period. In recognition of the importance of lodging campaign donations returns, the bill also requires members to lodge their returns within 10 days of the commencement of these amendments, if they have not done so already, or their positions will become vacant.

I note there is a tendency to describe this requirement to lodge returns as 'administrative', implying that it is simply a piece of red tape that council members must deal with. In fact, making information about campaign donations known and accessible is critical for transparency, accountability and ensuring trust in our elected member bodies. It is just as important for members to transparently declare that they did not receive any gifts, if they did not. Simply not completing a return on this basis does not provide certainty to council members' constituents that this has been the case.

Therefore, the bill makes clear that returns must still be lodged. It also does not affect the provisions within the Local Government (Elections) Act 1999 that provide that candidates in the election who did not return their campaign donations return may be liable for a $10,000 penalty. Of course, it will be open to the Electoral Commissioner to decide whether to pursue this course of action.

In closing, I emphasise once again that I am introducing this bill to manage an unacceptable situation. I agree with the Local Government Association, whose president, Mayor Dean Johnson, wrote to me on 14 February to request a legislative solution to this particular problem, that it should be addressed now, in the best interests of councils and their communities. I agree with the LGA president, Mayor Dean Johnson, when he says:

While the LGA accepts that individual elected officials bear personal responsibility for complying with their campaign reporting obligations, it appears the cost and consequence of not submitting paperwork on time is utterly unreasonable.

I will also be looking at all measures to ensure that this situation is never repeated, as part of a review of local government elections that will be underway as soon as the current election processes are complete. This has never happened in the history of the Local Government (Elections) Act 1999 until the previous changes were made to this process. Well, for the benefit of our communities, I am happy to offer a solution. I commend the bill to members and seek leave to have the explanation of clauses inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

The short title is the Local Government (Casual Vacancies) Amendment Act 2023.

Part 2—Amendment of Local Government Act 1999

2—Amendment of section 54—Casual vacancies

Section 54 of the Local Government Act 1999 is amended so that the office of a defaulting member will be taken not to be, and never to have been, vacant as a result of the failure by the defaulting member to submit a prescribed return before the expiration of 1 month from the end of the relevant period for the member.

The terms defaulting member, defaulting period, prescribed return and relevant period for a member are defined.

In connection with the above, it is provided in the measure that—

the member's performance or discharge of official functions or duties during the defaulting period is not invalid or unlawful by reason only of the failure referred to above; and

no allowance, expense or other entitlement paid or payable to a defaulting member in respect of their office during the defaulting period is to be recovered or withheld by reason only of that failure.

A defaulting member must submit their prescribed return (unless the member submitted it during the defaulting period) within 10 business days after the day on which the measure commences. If they fail to do so, their office becomes vacant.

It is provided that the operation of Part 14 of the Local Government (Elections) Act 1999 is not affected by the measure and no act or proceeding of a council is invalid by reason only of the operation of subsection (1a) (as proposed to be inserted by the measure).

Other amendments are technical or consequential.

Mr TELFER (Flinders) (15:41): I rise as the lead speaker for the opposition on the Local Government (Casual Vacancies) Amendment Bill and indicate the support of the opposition for this bill. It has been a pretty eventful week and a half for local government here in South Australia. There has been a lot of concern, a lot of stress, a lot of uncertainty that has been caused through this scenario.

Last sitting week, we heard the local government minister stand up and give notice that a significant number of council members had failed to lodge their campaign returns to the Electoral Commission of South Australia, and their positions as members on their council are likely to become vacant. We heard about, the night before, the minister meeting with the Electoral Commissioner for the first time since the local government elections, when he informed the minister of this issue with local government. Seemingly, that was some 3 to 3½ weeks after these people had actually lost their positions.

There was a statement made in this place that the window of one month for these people to put their requests into SACAT for their appeal to be heard was closing. That window says a month, but 3½ weeks after, it was the first time that we had heard about this. It was the first time that the people who are caught up in this chaos had heard about it, 3½ weeks afterwards. Some of these people only had a couple of business days, firstly, to get their head around the issue and, secondly, to get their appeal into SACAT.

As I said, a lot of stress, a lot of uncertainty was caused. I myself fielded an incredible number of phone calls, text messages and emails from elected members who had lost their positions—elected members who were uncertain whether they were caught up in this. Although the statement was made on the Thursday here in this place, a lot of those people, including CEOs, did not actually find out until the next day. Some of the members caught up in it did not actually find out until Saturday. Some of them had to have their appeals in to SACAT by the Monday. You can see that these scenarios, just from what I have set out so far, from my perspective, are unacceptable.

It is interesting the minister at the time used words like 'disappointing' and 'deeply disappointing', I think, and 'outrageous' to describe this situation, and highlighted his perspective that the blame was to sit at the feet of those individual council members. Indeed, I agree that some of the blame is obviously with these individual members because a significant number of them had managed to get their declarations in on time, but the number of 46 at the time, or 45 which it seems to have developed since, is too big a number for that blame to be sheeted purely at the feet of those individuals.

The stories that I heard from all across the state were from a variety of people, even some of those who were successful in getting their paperwork in on time. Some of these people got their paperwork in. They tried the online portal for a number of days unsuccessfully and ended up having to ring ECSA, and if you got the right person there they said, 'Well, email it in.' Some people were texting it in and some people were hand-delivering it. Some people put it in the mail before the cut-off date and were then informed by the Electoral Commission that, because they had not received it in time, that return was late and they had lost their positions.

There are so many unanswered questions through this process, and as I have mentioned in this place, in the media, publicly and to people who have been coming to me with concerns, we need to have answers to these questions.

What involvement did the minister have when we were getting to this point? What conversations had the minister had with the Electoral Commissioner? The question I asked in this place was answered with, 'Well, by legislation I wasn't allowed to talk to the Electoral Commissioner.' I have been looking through the Local Government Act and the Local Government (Elections) Act and I do not see anywhere that the minister was precluded from getting an update from ECSA on any concerns around the local government elections.

In the title of the role of local government minister, you can see that his core function is local government. The core aspect of local government is local government elections. In the two-month period that followed the local government elections, was there even just a conversation with the Electoral Commissioner to say, 'What's going on? What's the latest? Can I have an update?' This is after the elections have actually been completed. It confounds me that this conversation wasn't had between the minister and the Electoral Commissioner.

The question still outstanding for me is: how many complaints had the Electoral Commission had about the online portal, about the issues that people had with lodging their paperwork? I am hearing stories about people having issues with lodging their paperwork, not just after the election but their nominations before, people who struggled to actually get their nomination forms in and, even then, had to email it rather than use the portal.

Even since this issue with the online portal has come to a head and some of the supplementary elections that are being run at the moment, there are still issues with the online portal. I am just amazed that there has not been that recognition from those who have responsibility for local government and local government elections, that they have not recognised that there are issues here that need to be sorted. How many phone calls did the Electoral Commission get from candidates who were so frustrated with trying to upload their documents?

The communication itself which has come to elected members has been sporadic and uncertain. The minister highlighted that there were some 12 pieces of communication—that is the number that he quoted here—that the Electoral Commissioner told him were sent to elected members, but of course that included pre-election material, flyers that they got with the big pile of paperwork, and the reference was made here that even registered mail was sent to candidates. True, registered mail was sent to candidates.

Can I run you through the timelines for some of this communication? I hope that through this process you can see why there is such frustration in local government at the moment. The dates are a little bit uncertain because even the information that was coming to candidates around when their applications were due is inconsistent.

Within the legislation there is a line that says that if you have an election which is uncontested—so you are elected unopposed—your election result is declared on the weekday before the second Saturday. I have been reading through the Local Government Act and the Local Government (Elections) Act quite a lot over the last week and a half. The weekday before the second Saturday—from my calculations that would be around about 12 December. People had a 30-day period from that day to get their forms in, and once it was past that they had a month. So they had to have their forms in between 12 November and 12 December. A month from that is 12 January.

The letter that the Electoral Commission sent to people—the registered mail that is being relied on as a real source of truth so that everyone knows exactly what their requirements are—is dated 12 January, the very day that a number of these members actually lost their positions. You can see why there is frustration. Now, that is the day the letter is dated. I do not know about you, but I am sure that as reliable as Australia Post is, it is not going to get in people's hands on 12 December. A number of the people who have been contacting me have said, 'It didn't actually hit my letterbox until the 18th or the 19th.' These people were getting notified that they had to get their letters in by a certain date and that date had already passed. That is why there is so much stress and so much uncertainty.

The dates that have been given to people have been inconsistent as well. On one hand, you have people who have been elected unopposed. The date of their declaration starting is, as I have said, that weekday before the second Saturday. The declaration for those who had a contested election was a date after that. However, the advice that had come from the Electoral Commission was the same advice for those who were elected unopposed as it was for those who were elected through a contested election. The advice that was sent in that registered letter that was dated 12 January actually said, 'You've got until 19 January to get your form in.'

I am starting to unpack just a little bit of the anguish that I have been hearing from elected members after the minister made his statement in this place on the last Thursday in the last sitting week—the anguish, the stress, the uncertainty that people have. There are people who have been putting their forms in and the Electoral Commissioner has been saying, 'Yes, this form is lodged appropriately' but then they are caught up in this chaos.

Where is the minister in all of this? This is the bit that I still cannot get my head around. How can it be nearly two months after these people had overdue forms that the minister is finding out? Where is that communication from the Electoral Commissioner?

There is an obligation on the Electoral Commission. As soon as a form is overdue (that date being around 12 December) there is a legislative obligation—it is in the legislation—on the returning officer for local government elections to inform these people 'as soon as practicable' that their forms are overdue and they only have a month to get them in.

Now, if you are following along, I would have thought that 'as soon as practicable' would be the day that they became overdue, the day after perhaps, perhaps that week. Give it a little bit of leeway. They would have seen this coming. It was a month. It was a month after these people had an overdue form that the letter was dated to let them know their forms were overdue. That month was the period of time that they had before they had lost their positions.

Following on from that, they had lost their positions and they had a month to put their request in to SACAT for a hearing, for an appeal. But we only publicly found out about this whole chaotic event 3½ weeks after that period. There are so many unanswered questions. There is so much information that has been made available to me as a shadow minister by concerned, stressed elected members that we do not have answers for.

This whole process brings me no joy at all. I have so many friends and colleagues in local government who have gone through so much uncertainty and so much stress because of this scenario, and we need there to be accountability. We need to know in the cold, hard light of day what issues were there with the process, what issues were there with communication, where did the accountability sit, how are we going to rectify these issues, and are those who are responsible going to be held accountable?

This legislated obligation to let people know failed the very people who were caught up in this. As I said, it brings me no joy. It brings me no joy to ask these hard questions of the local government minister and of the Attorney-General, who are responsible for the process. The local government minister is responsible for local government. The Attorney-General is responsible to the Electoral Commission. When are we going to get these answers? This is why I think the only way for us to truly be certain about this whole process and learn from the mistakes that were made is for us to have an independent investigation.

I do welcome this small but important piece of legislation, and I have been calling both publicly in this place and in the media—sorry, not on the phone—I have been making calls publicly for this to be sorted, because the vast majority of people who are caught up in this, unfortunately, are regional people: people with pretty poor internet, people with pretty delayed Australia Post, people who are genuine in their need and their want to be serving their community. Many people have had to fork out thousands of dollars for legal advice to put their appeals into SACAT.

A lot of these regional councillors—and I used to be one of them—do not get paid a lot in their allowance. The councils at tier 5 level, which a lot of our smaller regional councils are, their elected members are paid $6,000 or $7,000 to cover a bit of their costs for a year. It is not much. I know that it always used to cost me personally and my business a lot more than the dollars that I used to get back, and we have seen a situation where these people are putting thousands of dollars into legal advice as far as the SACAT process goes.

As I said, I welcome this legislation. It is something that I have been hoping would come because, in the end, we have 45 community representatives in councils who have been hanging in the wind for the last week and a half, and the uncertainty that that has created in their communities, from my perspective, is unacceptable.

The answers to the questions that I am looking for about the process still remain unanswered. I hope that once this legislation goes through with the support of the government and the opposition, once these community representatives are appointed back into their positions, once the dust has settled, we can have a fulsome look at how we got to the point of 45 councillors losing their positions and the heartache that that caused.

The process has failed. I do not think the legislation has been the failing point. It has been well pointed out by media and many in this place that the period of time put in place in the legislation for reporting is not insignificant. I think it is the communication to the members who have been caught up in this that needs a good look. I really encourage the minister that, once we have stopped talking about it in this place, we have an independent investigation so that we know where these mistakes are being made, where these processes have failed, and how we have reached the point where we are having to consider retrospective legislation.

This is not good lawmaking at all. This is retrospective. In any other scenario, I think as an opposition, we would be questioning the validity of making rules to try to fix a problem that has already happened. But for the impact that it has had on these 36 communities and these 45 councillors, on behalf of the opposition, I put forth my support. I look forward to this going through both houses. I trust that, in the next sitting week, when it is considered in the other place, the 45 members who have been put out of their representative bodies on their councils can be reinstated and their communities can have more certainty.

Ms SAVVAS (Newland) (16:00): Today, I wish to also speak to the Local Government (Casual Vacancies) Amendment Bill. This bill is incredibly important, as is its expedience, and will deal with the situation that has arisen where vacancies have been created for 45 council member positions due to those members' failure to lodge their campaign donation returns within the statutory deadline.

The bill proposes to amend section 54 of the act, to retrospectively disapply those provisions that automatically make the members' positions vacant. That is in the case when they have not lodged a return within one month of the statutory deadline for doing so by deeming those vacancies to not have occurred. We adhere to a change in process, and that is the process outlined by part 14 of the Local Government (Elections) Act, which lays out requirements for the management of campaign donations. This includes requirements for all candidates to furnish returns to the returning officer, being ECSA.

There are two times during the candidacy or post the candidacy when those candidates must furnish those returns for a periodic election: firstly, within 21 days of close of nominations, to capture information so far as is possible before voting starts—a very important step in terms of transparency for voters before they go to the ballot box or the ballot envelope, as the case may be. I do think it is incredibly important to note here that a number of councillors who do not meet the requirements of the process did, in fact, provide this first return.

The act also requires a second return often referred to as 'campaign donation 2', which must be furnished within 30 days after the conclusion of the election. For the purposes of complete and transparent disclosure, candidates must furnish the return even if they have not received any gifts. Personally, I did not receive any gifts in my own council campaign but was required to provide returns at different times of my tenure to provide transparency to the constituency. I do strongly believe that that is transparency that our constituencies are owed.

This bill is not here in any way to modify the requirement to provide disclosure: it is here to benefit communities and to ensure the sanctity of the democratic process. It is to benefit those people who would have been unfairly sent to the ballot box again at the cost of the taxpayer and/or ratepayer. It is not here to challenge, as suggested by the member for Flinders, whether individuals received their form on time or whether there were issues with the portal, and such. This is a bill to support community outcomes. Our minister is actively introducing a bill to fix the mess left to us by the former government, so I do actually agree with the fact that it perhaps is retrospective in order to fix the changes to the Local Government Act that allowed for this mess to be created in the first place.

This will provide a solution that would have otherwise had an unacceptable impact on community members through additional costs that may occur through supplementary elections or delays in important council business. In my own community, the City of Tea Tree Gully, where I was formerly a councillor, some residents have already been sent to the ballot box four times in the past 18 months, and I think it is important to respect the decisions that have been made in that time. For me, that is the importance of this bill. It is important to protect our community members, and to ensure that that democratic will is respected without the huge cost associated with supplementary elections.

For me, it is also important to get back to business. I do believe in strong councils, and I believe in getting real outcomes for our communities. The process of a supplementary election of course interferes with that, as does the incredibly timely and costly process of applying to SACAT for a result. As a result of that process, should it have been going ahead, our local outcomes are interfered with. I also do not wish those costs on duly elected councillors, and I think it is important to also consider those councillors who have been through this process and at times faced some quite difficult media scrutiny as well as community scrutiny due to this process that has occurred.

It is also very important to note that this bill does not remove the obligation for all candidates to manage their campaign donations and to furnish their returns so that communities can see what they have received. We do know that forthright and adequate donation disclosure is a fundamental component of democracy and that constituents deserve transparency and accountability when it comes to donation returns. We have to ensure that element is protected and will be respected without the need for exorbitant cost to the community. I am very happy to be commending the bill today.

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (16:05): I rise to congratulate this parliament for pursuing this course of action and congratulate the minister for bringing this bill to the house and the expediency with which he hopes to pass it. I have to say, without knowing all the details of all the indiscretions, I have talked to a couple of the councillors within my electorate, and it does feel to me as though evicting them from their roles on council is like cracking a walnut with a sledgehammer.

It seems like quite a hefty penalty, at least for the indiscretions I am aware of, for what seem like relatively minor indiscretions. I congratulate the minister—and the parliament, it seems—for pursuing this course of action and providing a clean slate for those councillors who, at least in my part of the world, are only there to serve their community. They are putting their hands up not by any means to enrich themselves or advance any job prospects: they are purely there on behalf of their community because they want to see improvements made.

To provide punitive measures like this that might otherwise discourage people from putting their hands up in the future I think would be a step backwards. Enabling those people to take the place that they earned by virtue of the support of their communities and to continue to advocate on behalf of their communities is a step in the right direction, so congratulations to the parliament.

It has already been touched on quite eloquently by the member for Flinders, but I do want to touch upon the stress that this has placed upon some of those candidates. I had the opportunity to talk to Richard Carruthers, who was successfully elected to the Yorke Peninsula Council and has been a stalwart of that council and certainly a number of communities in the council for quite some time, who was unfortunately caught up in this mess. I have to say that the stress that he has gone through as a result of being caught up in this has had quite an impact on him and his family.

As I said, I talked to him last night and asked his permission before bringing it up. He was extremely relieved to hear that this is the course of action that is being pursued. He has always done his best to put the community first and has achieved some significant things for those people he represents. The idea that he might be tarnished with this brush despite a relatively minor indiscretion was weighing quite heavily on his mind.

In addition to that, I do not think he would mind me saying that Richard had already gone out and secured the services of a lawyer at personal expense to himself, which is obviously money he will not get back but such was his determination to clear his name, continue to serve his community and continue to do what he has done for quite some time. I, for one, am relieved that Richard will be able to take his place on the council going forward and that Kristin Murdock will be able to take her place on the council going forward. I look forward to seeing what the YP Council can achieve in its upcoming term.

I want also to flag that I note the minister has put on the record that he intends to do a bit of a review of the Local Government Act going forward. I have received feedback from the community, particularly those people who put their hands up for council, on a couple of matters that I will foreshadow as being matters that I will bring up in the course of that review, the first of those being the fact that we do not have public nominations.

There do not appear to be any publicly disclosed nominations, so people in the community are not aware of how many people have put their hands up to serve on council. Again, I can only speak with any authority for my part of the world, but I think in my part of the world that had the effect of not empowering people to know whether help was needed. As I said, they do that to serve their community first and foremost. If they are not aware that their community needs serving, then they will be less likely to put their hand up.

For example, if there were a shortage of councillors, you might have people within the community feeling inclined to then support the council and put their hands up to make sure they had a full quota of members. I think that would be a beneficial thing, so I will be pursuing that and inquiring as to whether that ought to be changed as part of that review.

The other thing that was brought to my attention, which I believe I have talked about in this place before, was the fact that the Copper Coast Council did not have the requisite number of nominations. I cannot remember the number now. I think they had eight nominations for nine positions or 10 nominations for 11, or whatever it may have been and, despite that fact, despite the fact no election was held, they still received a bill from the Electoral Commission for the conducting of that election.

That, to me, does not seem to make sense. I know we have to spread the costs out in theory, but if no election was held it seems quite incongruous that you would get a bill for the conducting of an election. I will be investigating whether that ought to be changed, and if no election is held whether they ought to receive a bill, and I guess more broadly whether the Electoral Commission should be recovering costs at all.

One of the virtues of our system is that the Electoral Commission is independent and conducts its elections independently of any level of government. They already receive an allowance from the state government every year in the budget, so whether that money ought to be used and ought to be enough to conduct the elections that they are charged with conducting will be a matter that I will be pursuing as part of this review.

In conclusion, congratulations to the minister and the government and the entire parliament for the pursuit of this outcome. I think it is a worthy outcome for those people who have put their hand up, committed relatively minor indiscretions and who only want to serve their community. I look forward to seeing it pass through this house speedily.

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (16:10): I will not take long. I think it has all been said. This is a straightforward commonsense piece of legislation. As has been stated, it is retrospective in nature, which is usually not a good thing but in this case it is a way of addressing an immediate problem and it does so in a way that preserves the fundamental principle that underlines why people need to make this declaration. You do want openness and transparency and accountability when it comes to election processes.

I think it is incredibly important that, if people do receive gifts or donations, people need to know about that. In fact, I am a huge advocate of having fundamental changes to the Electoral Act, hopefully at a state level and a federal level, when it comes to donations. I think there is a lot of improvement that is needed. The Premier has flagged that we are going to see if we can bring about some change here in South Australia when it comes to state elections, which will be a very good thing if we can do that.

Like other people, I have spoken to some of the people caught up in this. I am not going to go into any of the detail. The minister has flagged that there will be a review, and I think that is an important step. That is something that does need to happen. It is good to see these people reinstated into their positions; after all, they were elected by their communities. For some councils it will save a significant amount of money that could be spent better on other things than re-contesting elections.

So it is good to see this legislation, it is good to see the bipartisan support and it was good to see the LGA advocate for a legislative solution to this problem. I hope a whole bunch of people out there can breathe a bit more easily now that this is going to get through both houses of parliament in a speedy fashion.

Ms THOMPSON (Davenport) (16:13): I rise to offer my support for the Local Government (Casual Vacancies) Amendment Bill. Today our government is moving a bill to step in to resolve a situation that never should have happened. As a former mayor and former member of the Local Government Association board, I have to say that quite frankly this is pretty embarrassing for the local government sector.

Whilst the vast majority of members did the right thing, it is extremely disappointing that 45 recently elected council members failed to lodge their campaign donation returns on time, which has put them at risk of losing their positions on council. It means that ratepayers could potentially need to foot the bill for multiple by-elections across the state, with the potential to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

We all know what this money could do for our local communities. I would love to see my council fix up the local skate park that young skater, Sid, has been lobbying for for far too long. I would love to see them finish the network of footpaths across my electorate. Tens of thousands of dollars would definitely be put to good use by our local sporting clubs. I know that the Happy Valley Vikings Netball Club could use an extra netball court, and the Seacombe Softball Club would love a new diamond.

Our government needs to step in to quickly resolve this matter with a solution that avoids significant disruption to the democratic process in the business of councils. This bill will protect ratepayers from the prospect of costly by-elections, and allow councils to get on with the business they were elected to do. The bill means council members will be granted 10 additional days to lodge their campaign donation returns and avoid the prospect of losing their elected position permanently.

Transparency in the electoral system is of utmost importance, and all requirements must still be adhered to. It is a basic requirement of the local government act that all candidates must complete returns that outline gifts they may have received during their campaigns. This was a requirement when I was on council, it was a requirement when the shadow minister for local government was on council, and it has been a requirement for more than 20 years.

It ensures that councils' constituents are aware of gifts their members have received and who has provided those to them. It is fundamental to the proper transparency and accountability of council members' decision-making. The process is not onerous, so it really is disappointing that so many elected members have not met this basic requirement.

Notwithstanding the efforts of the Electoral Commissioner to remind the councillors of their responsibilities, it is clear that the change to the Local Government Act in 2021 that required campaign donation returns to be provided to the Electoral Commissioner rather than the CEO of their respective council has resulted in this unfortunate situation. Prior to that process change this scenario had not occurred in previous elections, so it is fair to attribute some responsibility to this and not place all the blame on the individual councillors.

This bill provides a simple solution that would otherwise have an unacceptable impact on councils' communities. We are looking to resolve this issue in the best interests of councils and, most importantly, their communities, their ratepayers. The government is taking the necessary action to return members who were democratically elected to their communities in November 2022 to office, and it is very pleasing to hear our local government minister inform us that he will be considering longer term change as part of a review of all aspects of local government elections to prevent this situation occurring again.

It is an absolute privilege to serve as a member of a local council and, while I feel for some of those who have felt stress from the situation, the roles do come with significant responsibility. This bill does not in any way excuse the 45 members who failed to lodge their returns. It simply removes the burden that communities who elected these members would otherwise be carrying and ultimately paying to fix. Ratepayers should not have to bear the cost of these administration failures and, out of respect for the democratic process, this is the right thing to do.

I am looking forward to seeing our local councils move past this and return their focus to the great work they do for their communities every day. I commend this bill to the house.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (16:17): I rise in support of this bill, and do so for three reasons. First, the bill seeks to ensure that those people who were elected at the local government elections in November last year are successful in their positions by having the retrospective provision in this bill.

That is important; wherever possible we need to maintain the integrity of our democratic processes, and the people in those communities have spoken through the ballot box. While no-one is affected in my main council area, there are people affected in one of the councils that is part of my electorate, although the elected member is not part of my electorate as such.

It is important that we maintain confidence in our council decision-making processes, and that is the second reason I support this bill. The bill makes it very clear that any decisions made by councils while these elected members may have been in default are not invalidated. This bill validates those decisions, and that is very important to remove any uncertainty. That is the second reason.

Thirdly, and also very importantly, what this bill does is reinforce the requirement to be transparent. The bill reinforces and makes it very clear that those 45 elected members who find themselves in this position still need to provide that information in a timely fashion. My understanding is that the bill gives them 10 days after this act is operational.

If I was one of those elected members I would make sure that my paperwork was up to scratch and straightforward and that it was not left to the last minute. I think that this bill is the best you can do in what is a relatively bad situation, and I commend both the minister and the government for taking this action.

A whole range of other things could be done, which could be very messy and have a great deal of uncertainty, and more importantly could be very costly to some communities, particularly some of those regional communities that have very small rate bases where elections and supplementary elections are quite expensive for them.

I think that this bill is the right way to go. Firstly, as I said, it reinstalls those members who were already duly elected. Perhaps some communities or some councils did not want those people elected, but that is a different story. However, they were duly elected and there is nothing to suggest otherwise.

Secondly, it validates any existing decisions made by council, and thirdly the transparency required by the act itself is retained. For those three reasons, I support this bill and ask the house to do so.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:20): I rise in support of the Local Government (Casual Vacancies) Amendment Bill 2023. Occasionally in this place we see sensibilities that are sensible for the state, and I commend the work of the shadow minister, the member for Flinders, in pursuing this issue to make sure that, in this place, we can right the wrongs, and some of these wrongs do not seem to be particularly an individual's fault to a degree.

If anyone has tried to access business portals, and that kind of thing, thinking that they have lodged a document—tax, for instance, an ABN—and then realise maybe a week or two later, 'Oh, hang on, that didn't work,' or someone gets hold of you, it is something that is easy to do.

I think that some of the complexities of the reporting certainly need to be ironed out into the future. We do not want to dissuade people from entering any form of public office. We know that the Electoral Commission had a busy year but its role is to run elections. That is its one role in South Australia. Yes, it ran a state election, a federal election and a local government election—one job.

Some of the time lines involved seem ridiculous—the time lines involved in who let who know on what had happened. Yes, we do want transparency, but it appears that there were some issues in reporting back to people in senior positions—for example, the minister—about what happened here.

Certainly the good people of this state who put their hands up for local government for not much reward, let me say, have the reward of looking after their communities, and sometimes very small communities, very small councils, that have low rate bases and that work very hard to get grants above their rate base to make sure that they can service those communities. I commend them all, whether they are from the smaller communities or the larger communities.

Just one, for example, is the Mid Murray Council, which has a very small rate base and which has overseen millions of dollars worth of work building levees during the flood crisis, and they just got on with it. They just got on with the job relying on the word from the state government that where the holes in the finances need to be filled they will be, and if they are not I will be following them up, but I am sure they will be.

In relation to this bill, it seems to me that there have been some very, very honest mistakes made. It seems quite a reporting process, where candidates for local government have to acknowledge whether they have received gifts or not when they are elected. Obviously, it does seem to be a flawed process. As the member for Narungga said, perhaps down the track there are some other things that need to be reviewed in relation to the Local Government Act.

In regard to this bill, I think it is timely. I think it saves hundreds of thousands of dollars for local governments, which is vital in these times of higher interest rates. It would take a lot of stress away from people who have lodged their claims with SACAT. Hopefully, everything will be resolved with the passing of this legislation, giving more time for these valued candidates.

I hope everyone gets through this well—the people who thought they had achieved positions—because it has had other effects on council. Some of the broader committees of council all of a sudden realised that the chairs of some of their other local government groupings could not be chair anymore because technically they were not elected, so we had to have people backfill those positions in a hurry, which was done. It just causes stresses all along the board.

I wish this legislation speedy passage. I wish everyone, and certainly the 45 or so people who have been directly affected, all the best. I hope that the right result will come because of this legislation passing through the parliament.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK (Stuart—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Roads, Minister for Veterans Affairs) (16:26): I appreciate all the contributions from everybody. I acknowledge the members for Flinders, Newland, Narungga, Giles, Davenport, Light and Hammond. I think this is a commonsense resolution going forward. Again, I have listened to all the comments and suggestions from everybody today. I will give you a guarantee I will take those on board. I certainly commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.G. BROCK (Stuart—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Roads, Minister for Veterans Affairs) (16:27): Thank you to everybody for their contributions. I look forward to the speedy passage of this bill through both houses so that we can get this sorted out and into the community, and local government can get on with what they do best: serving people. I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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