HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-09-08 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ELECTIONS) (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 July 2009. Page 2920.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (18:08): I rise today to indicate the opposition's support for the bill. The bill follows on from the independent review of the 2006 local government elections undertaken by Margaret Wagstaff in 2007-08. The review covered three key themes: voter participation in local government elections; local government representation; and local government election processes. The final report of the independent review, released in March 2008, made 27 recommendations, and the government, in December 2008, responded to that report and accepted 23 of those recommendations.

The opposition does not support this government's propensity to meddle in the affairs of local government by telling local government how to run its operations, which is so often a trademark of the government's relationship with local government. We do not see the bill, though, in that context; rather, the bill reflects the fact that local government is established under state legislation. The bill is an opportunity for the state government and, for that matter, the state parliament, to support councils in establishing governance and election systems that encourage voter participation and ensure transparency.

Whatever level of government we are talking about, it is important that election processes are transparent and accountable; in fact, it is vital to ensure a robust democracy. Voters need to be confident that elections are conducted impartially and that safeguards are in place to prevent tampering with or distorting of the election process. We are reminded of the importance of transparent elections and public faith in the processes by relatively recent events: the Iranian elections earlier this year and also the Afghanistan elections, which are currently in progress. The peace and good order of those nations is and has been jeopardised by a lack of confidence in the electoral process.

While Australia has a strong democratic process, we need to be vigilant in maintaining the transparency of the processes and ensure that there are safeguards to prevent abuse. In this context, I think it would be helpful to remind ourselves that even well developed democratic states can still have problems with their electoral processes, which undermine the credibility of the governments elected as a result. Of course, most recently, the United States had major problems with 'pregnant chats' and other electoral issues, which served to cast a pall over the election results and I think undermined the moral authority of the people who took office after those elections.

I think it is particularly true of a jurisdiction that uses voluntary voting and, in that context, we need to be particularly careful, on behalf of the local government bodies of this state, to make sure that the integrity of the electoral system is secure. The confidence of a community in its local government is very important, and a robust electoral process is an important foundation of that trust.

As I have said, the opposition supports the general thrust of this bill. We recognise the unique position of local government as a level of government that is focused on drawing services together in a particular community and acknowledge that, as such, local government is uniquely well placed to foster local communities. All politics is local. Wherever people come from, they are concerned with how policies and programs affect their life and their local community, and strong local communities are the cornerstone of a vibrant state.

From time to time, we hear even from senior members of the government. I recall comments by Treasurer Foley on radio recently describing councils as being concerned only with rates, rubbish and roads, but that is a sorely outdated perception in the modern era. Local government not only plays a major role across a whole series of service delivery domains but I believe has great potential to play an even greater role. For example, in areas such as disability services, the role of local councils in fostering an inclusive community is greatly undervalued, perhaps even by some local government bodies.

Local government is already involved in community respite care, local crime strategies and planning processes. In a whole series of domains, local government is a key partner with state and federal governments in delivering services on the ground. For this reason, we acknowledge the importance of encouraging participation in local government and ensuring that the process of local government elections is well placed and suited to achieving this goal. Participation in government and elections should not be a challenging or ambiguous task; processes for elections need to be clear and transparent. In this respect, it is pleasing to see that this bill contains provisions that improve transparency in areas such as provisional enrolments and provisions relating to misleading material.

Many of the provisions in the bill reflect election processes for state and federal governments and, in some cases, those of local government bodies elsewhere in Australia. In particular, I am pleased to see the introduction of a caretaker period during local government elections. The opposition sees this as an important step in strengthening accountability and transparency. These are key measures which further strengthen local government and election processes.

However, we do have concerns about some sections of the bill, such as the amendments relating to the property franchise, and I will address these during the committee stage. I flag that I will be moving some amendments to the bill, and I hope to file those amendments very shortly.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH (18:15): The Local Government (Elections) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill proposes some very worthwhile amendments that enhance the democratic rights of local government electors and will, hopefully, have a positive impact on the standard of government that South Australians can expect.

As a former councillor for the City of Norwood, Payneham and St Peters, I can appreciate the challenges facing candidates who are seeking election and the incredible amount of organisation that is needed to conduct local government elections. I also appreciate the challenge of convincing people to vote in non-compulsory elections.

I welcome and wholeheartedly support the initiatives proposed to engage more of the population in the decision-making process and look forward to seeing local government elections promoted accordingly. Voter turnouts of less than 30 per cent are unacceptable in a modern democracy, and I support the measures suggested to increase these levels.

I commend smaller and regional councils that have successfully increased voter participation to over 50 per cent and hope to see this trend continue, both in an increase in their vote and across metropolitan councils. A low voter turnout would seem to indicate either a lack of confidence in the democratic process or a perceived lack of relevance for the ordinary resident. This cannot be put down simply to apathy or complacency. Representative governments must have relevance and be proactive in representing constituent concerns.

One of the most significant reforms contained in the bill is to ensure that all electors have only a single vote to exercise and the abolition of the archaic practice that favoured property and business owners by allowing them multiple votes in elections. I have always disliked this aspect of local government and I congratulate the minister on moving to remove it.

The Local Government Association has a number of proposed amendments. I generally do not support those, particularly those that relate to the LGA becoming responsible for the promotion of elections and giving candidates access to the electoral roll. I believe the minister's rationale is sound in opposing these changes, and the provisions outlined in the bill before us would be a better outcome.

In relation to the promotion of elections, I think that local government seeks recognition as a legitimate level of government and I support its seeking and achieving that recognition, but I think that means that local government should follow the same rules as other levels of government and have elections run by the State Electoral Office.

I will be proposing an amendment that I think will make a major contribution to increasing participation in local government elections, and that is giving 16 year olds the vote. The history of democracy is the expansion of the right to vote. To give a very potted 30 second version of the history of democracy, in small European communities in our history males often had the vote in a direct but sexist sort of democracy. This is a reminder of the local roots of democracy, the town hall or village green variety. But at the national level, over a period, kings took control and no-one had the vote. Then nobles formed parliaments and seized the vote, for them, anyway, then men with property, then all men, and then women and other excluded groups, such as African-Americans in the United States or Aboriginal Australians in Australia.

On the age front, you once had to be 21 years of age, then in 1974 this was lowered to 18. I think it is now time to take another step and extend the vote to 16 year olds in local government elections. This has long been the policy of the Democrats and the Greens, and the Rudd government is even commissioning a discussion paper on giving the vote to 16 and 17 year olds in federal elections. Knowing the form of Kevin Rudd, this idea could disappear into a committee for a generation but for the fact that analysts feel that, politically, this small step for democracy would translate into a middle-sized leap for the Labor Party, which seems to be more attractive to young people.

Leaving the politics aside, what are the arguments for extending the vote? Sixteen year olds have at least one foot in the adult world. According to 2006 data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, about 38 per cent of 16 year olds are either working casual, part time or full time, or looking for work. If these young Australians are expected to contribute taxes to the government's coffers should they not have a say in how their hard earned money is spent? I remind members that I have four teenagers.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I will come to that. Two 16 year old Australians are allowed, by law, to have consensual sex and to give birth to a child, so why should they not have a formal say in the running of the society into which that child is born? There are many international precedents for giving the vote to 16 year olds. Sixteen year olds are eligible to vote in Brazil, Nicaragua and Cuba. They are eligible to vote in municipal elections in some of the German states, in Austria and in a number of states in the United States.

These latter examples show that it is also possible to have different voting ages within the same country for different levels of government. We are already halfway there in our federal elections. Young people can already enrol to vote in their 17th year in case an election comes around and they have just turned 18.

Self-defence is another reason to give young people the right to vote. This is a rarely stated but, I believe, fundamental advantage of democracy. It gives ordinary people some sort of shield against abuse or neglect by the rich and powerful. In the case of young people, older Australians vote on the basis of their views about education, crime, driving age and many other things that affect young people.

Young people are the subject of regular moral panics about gangs, drugs, alcohol, alcopops and you name it. Sometimes this anxiety of the older generation is justified; sometimes it is hysterical. If young people had the vote, they would have to be courted and their views listened to by the rest of the community on these matters.

However, my own favourite is the 'more the merrier' approach to democracy. Democracy is a good thing, a gift, so let us make it as widely available as possible. As a society, we should allow as many people as possible to vote, so the voting age should be set at the lowest level at which people can make an informed, educated decision. I think many young people can do that at the age of 16. What are the arguments against extending the vote? There seem to be two main arguments: they are too young and too inexperienced.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: And too stupid.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: The honourable member has pre-empted my next line: it sounds just the sort of thing people our age would have said about lowering the voting age from 18 to 21 in 1974.

The Hon. A. Bressington: And look what happened!

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: They elected you. Life experience is important but, in a rapidly changing world, so is an open mind and a fresh perspective—something young people are more likely to have than their uncles, parents and grandparents.

Another argument is that in other areas we are increasing the age of qualification to certain rights. The school leaving age is moving up to 17 and the driving age is being increased and, in effect, older people are making more and more laws about young people. This sounds to me like an argument for giving young people the vote so that they can have a say in the laws that are being made about them. This is the self-defence argument.

I do not think these are solid arguments. In fact, I think the underlying resistance to expanding the vote (and I think this gets to the heart of the interjections so far) is that we are getting older and grumpier and that our teenagers do not clean their rooms, have excessively long showers, leave the lights on when they go to bed and have far too much fun—all true but not exactly arguments against giving them the right to vote.

I urge members of the government to consider the recommendations of their Young Labor members who have consistently pushed to lower the voting age to 16 since their national conference in 1995—and that is as far back in history as the privatisation of SA Water. I look forward to support of my amendment at the committee stage.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.

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