HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-09-22 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ELECTIONS) (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I move:

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

We have discussed this extensively, so I will take very little time on it. This is simply to extend the vote in local council elections to 16 year olds, on a voluntary basis. As I have said before, this is voluntary. It will only attract that small minority of 16 year olds who are interested in local government, which is an even smaller minority of the general population that participate in local government elections.

In nine out of 10 cases it would have very little practical effect. It may provide an opportunity for motivated young people to mobilise support around specific issues in their local council areas, but I think that is a good thing. I think it is a good thing to interest young people in participating in the democratic process, and if they do in any numbers then I think other generations will notice and will mobilise in response, and I think that is a good thing.

I believe there is very little to be lost and the potential to engage young people at the age of 16. As I said, most of the arguments have already been made here. One additional argument to put is that the opposition to this sort of measure—to lowering the voting age—seems to come from some sort of notion that somehow the bulk of the population, when they turn 18, studiously trawl through our websites, study our policy documents, listen intently to everything that we say on the radio—

The Hon. R.P. Wortley: Too busy watching Australian Idol.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I do not know whether you are talking about the over 18s or the under 18s.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Under 18s. It has been proven that 90 per cent would rather watch Australian Idol than—

The CHAIRMAN: Order!

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I think it has been proven that 90 per cent of over 18s would rather watch MasterChef than read the transcripts of Hansard. So we are not somehow contrasting this fount of wisdom and engagement and careful study that is untapped once you turn 18: we are talking about a population that, over all, does not pay a lot of attention to politics until they have to. In this case, at least, it would open the door for a group of young people who may be interested. In fact, there is a small group who are interested; it does not include my children, but it does include other young people with whom I have had contact. I think it would be a good thing to provide those young people with the opportunity to become engaged in political life, and I think this is a very safe and appropriate place to start.

I have a number of other amendments that are consequential on this; therefore, if this amendment is rejected all my other amendments to this bill would not need to be moved. However, I would not want that to be an incentive for honourable members to rush into a decision to reject this amendment. I look forward to a sudden outburst of idealism from the major parties, and commend the amendment to the committee.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I very briefly add my support for this amendment. The Greens' policy has long been that 16 and 17 year olds should have the right to vote voluntarily, and I moved these same amendments to the state electoral reform that we are currently discussing. I thank the Hon. David Winderlich for putting this before us and urge all honourable members to support it.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: These amendments are directed to only one proposed change, and permit persons aged 16 or 17 to apply to a council to be placed on that council's electoral roll. This would permit 16 and 17 year olds to vote in local government elections, even though he or she would be ineligible to vote in a state or commonwealth government election. I have a lot of sympathy for the sentiments outlined by the honourable member; however, I am sure he understands when I say that unfortunately the government is not able to support those amendments.

In his second reading contribution and in his introductory remarks to his amendment, the honourable member advanced a number of reasons in support of the proposal. He also tried to anticipate some likely objections to his proposal. The independent review of local government elections examined the suggestion that the voting age be lowered to 16. On page 31 of its interim report, published in October 2007, the review quoted the opinion of the member for Fisher on this subject and noted that amongst hundreds of responses to its consultation only three people argued for this change. It therefore concluded that there was little evidence of widespread support for this possible reform.

Against this is the fact that such a change would necessarily reduce the already low level of consistency between local government elections and elections for the other spheres of government. It is this issue of consistency, or lack of consistency, that dissuades the government from supporting the honourable member's amendment. The government has some sympathy for the amendments; if the commonwealth or state parliament, or both, decide at some stage in the future that the voting age should be lowered to 16 then we would surely argue that local government should follow suit. However, I consider that it would be unwise for local government to lead the way in this reform. Such a change would tend to work against efforts to improve consistency between electoral systems; although more persons would vote, it may tend to reinforce an unfortunate perception held by some in the community that local government elections are not to be taken as seriously as elections for other spheres of government.

On a related matter, in his second reading contribution the honourable member made the point that in federal elections young people can already enrol to vote when they are 17 so that they can vote in the election that occurs as soon as they turn 18. The honourable member, I am sure, has noticed that in this bill we have picked up that point as part of our reform. Under the provisions of this bill a young person aged 17 will be able to provisionally enrol to vote in local government elections as well. He or she can vote in such an election provided his or her 18th birthday occurs before the close of voting. Unfortunately, that is probably as close as the government can come to supporting the honourable member's amendment.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The opposition has not been persuaded by the arguments to reduce the voting age to 16. In any event, as the minister indicated, we agree that it would not be helpful to have a different age for local government elections from those of state and federal elections.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

New clause 4A.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: 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 the act at intervals of three 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.

The opposition seeks through this amendment to amend the act to change the intervals for elections from four years to three years. It has been Liberal Party policy, and it has also been in accordance with my experience, having been, until recently, the shadow minister for state/local government relations.

My consultation with elected members shows that four years is seen by many as too long. A four-year term may be appropriate in full-time roles, but in unpaid, part-time roles people often feel unable to commit as far ahead as four years. In a tighter job market, when people stay in jobs for shorter periods than they did in the past, people feel more able to commit if the commitment is shorter. Anecdotally—I must admit, not scientifically—I am advised that this disincentive impacts particularly on women, perhaps because they are called upon to juggle a wider range of responsibilities than men often take on.

I note that the LGA position, as reflected in its policies, is that it supports four-year terms. I note in passing that these policies are made by people who are actually elected members. For them it was not an inconvenience; it may well be for others. I think it is our job as a parliament to be aware of the impact on the minority and to make sure that as many people as possible see local government service and local government elections as a feasible opportunity for them.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The effect of this clause is to reduce the term of local governments from four years to three years. The government is not able to support this amendment. This is effectively a rerun of a debate that occurred only four years ago in 2005. At that time, the Statutes Amendment (Local Government Elections) Act 2005 increased the term of local government elections from three years to four years. It also set the date of the local government elections to be in November, eight months after each state election. As a result, the current term of local government is the first term that will be for four years.

In 2005 several reasons were promoted for making this change. These reasons included: to avoid what would otherwise have been a clash of election dates in March and May 2006; to provide for a more stable government over a four year term; to provide consistency with the state election timetable; to reduce the overall cost to ratepayers of the election schedule; and to allow newly elected councillors some months to learn about their role, after a November poll, before considering an annual budget in the following April and May.

I need to add that standards for the role of local government, such as the level of expertise required, knowledge of legislation and processes of governance and so on, are increasing and more and more difficult for people to get their head around. In fact, a longer term provides more opportunity for people to come up to speed with those matters and to operate in a highly effective and efficient way.

The other reason is to permit serving councillors to seek election to state parliament with minimum disruption to their council. Those who are successful in a March poll would leave a vacancy on their council that would not need to be filled until the local government election in November. Those who are unsuccessful in a March state election might consider recontesting a council election in November.

At the time, the change was controversial. However, after the change was made in 2005, there has been little interest in revisiting the issue until now. The independent review of local government elections in 2007 looked at this issue in one of its issues papers released in 2007. The review asked: what change, if any, should be made to the timing of local government elections; for example, do they need to be further apart from the state elections and a different year?

The independent review received 20 responses to the question: six respondents recommended no change to the current provisions; nine proposed a different year; three proposed that it be at the same time as the state election; and two proposed only that November was not a good time. It is to be noted that there was not a single response to this question that suggested that the term of local government elections should be wound back from four years to three years.

As a result of the responses received, the interim report of the independent review put forward two possible suggestions, that is, either to make no change to the election date or to shift the date of the local government elections so that they fell 18 months after each state election. The final report of the independent review favoured the latter option. Recommendation 14 of the independent review states:

Altering the date of future local government elections so that they fall 18 to 19 months after the state elections would require extending the current term of office to all elected councils by 10 to 11 months, to conclude with an election some time in September or October 2011 and every four years thereafter.

The state government rejected that recommendation. The government formed the view that the election date should remain unchanged, on the basis that the present local government term is the first ever to run for four years and that an extension of that to meet the independent review proposal would mean that the current term was extended to almost five years, and we feel that is quite unreasonable.

It is ironic that the independent review sought to increase the current term of local government to almost five years. On the other hand, the Hon. Stephen Wade is now suggesting that local government terms should be three years. The government is sticking to the middle ground, which is a four year term. We believe that is appropriate.

The reasons advanced for a four year term in 2005 are still valid today. A four year term provides a more stable government. It provides consistency with the state election timetable, and it reduces the overall cost to ratepayers of the election schedule. The amendment would increase the cost of local government elections to voters. With an election every three years, instead of every four years, there would be four elections in a 12 year period rather than three.

I should also point out the obvious fact that the initial four year term has not even been completed. So, the Hon. Stephen Wade's amendment comes before the first four year term has even been completed. We are not even into the third year of the first ever four year term of local government. The honourable member is not even willing to have this first ever four year term properly evaluated on its completion and has already declared that it is a failure. It is for those reasons the government opposes the amendment.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would like to comment on the element of drama the minister brought in at the end there. We do not need to complete a term to know whether it has discouraged people. People nominated at the beginning of the term knowing it was a four year term. It was at that point that discouragement would have been experienced.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The minister made the case that having some connection between the local government election cycle and the state government election cycle can result in less inconvenience. I think the minister made the point that, if someone has been perhaps a local councillor and then run in the state election and been unsuccessful, there is a vacancy on the council that does not need to be filled and it is only a fairly short period before the next election. That is how I understood the minister's argument. This might be a basic question, but are local councillors obliged to resign their local council positions before nominating for election to state parliament?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that, yes, they are.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In response to the minister's comments and, following on from the comments of the Hon. Mark Parnell in relation to electoral cycles, I think one needs to be clear that if a local councillor wanted to pursue a parliamentary career there is actually more than one parliament in Australia. I remind the honourable minister that a member of her own party, Mr Zappia, served as mayor of Salisbury.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: Gawler.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Gawler, was it? No, I was thinking of federal—Mr Zappia was the mayor of Salisbury and then served in the federal parliament. As to the synchronisation of parliaments, it might be cute if the minister thinks that local councillors are only capable of serving in a state parliament. It is clearly not synchronised with the federal parliament's three year terms, and my amendment puts it at least in synchronisation with that parliament.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Because I am not sure of the response that I gave in relation to the requirement to resign, although I was advised that that was so, I would like that double checked for the record, so we are double checking that.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: What were the initial arguments for moving from three year to four year terms? What was the basis or the reasons for the move from a three year term to a four year term?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have just listed them. I will briefly go through them again. They were:

to avoid the clash of election dates, for example, in March 2006 and May 2006; the change would have resulted in a clash;

to provide for a more stable government over four years (and I spoke about the job underpinning greater complexity, indicating that there were greater governance and other legal requirements, with standards always increasing), so it enables local councillors to take on board and learn their role, giving them a greater opportunity to put that in place;

to provide greater stability and hence more consistency with the state election timetable—the four year period; and

to reduce the overall cost, as it is more costly to have a three year cycle than a four year cycle.

Then I talked about newly elected members having to learn their role and to be able to apply it, and the need to permit serving councillors that opportunity to apply for a state election position and/or local council position.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: Yes, you did list those; you are correct. Were those arguments put forward by the state government or by local government? Essentially, was there any demand from local government for the move to four year terms?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: We are double-checking the LGA's position in relation to that at that time. I will put on the record that councillors are required to resign on election rather than at the time of nomination—that is just to set the record straight.

In relation to the points that I outlined, the advice I have received is that that was the government's position and, at this point in time, we cannot confirm whether the LGA supported those sentiments or not but we will endeavour to do that quickly.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: To avoid the matter perhaps going to an unnecessary division, I should state our position. I have listened very carefully to the arguments and I am quite attracted to what the mover of this amendment had to say in relation to the fact that these are effectively voluntary positions with very small levels of remuneration that, no doubt, do not even cover the costs of running. It is a big commitment and there may well be people who would put their hand up for this sort of service if it was a shorter term.

However, I am also conscious of what the minister has said about there not having been great agitation in the community or any submissions in relation to this change. For me, a key issue is the fact that we have not yet got through the first of the four year terms, and I think there is a case to be made to say that we should evaluate the experience of this first four year term before changing the system.

What I would like to see is some qualitative research, in particular, in relation to people who may have considered being candidates but, in the end, did not because they were not prepared to commit for that length of term. I would also be interested in seeing research about any increase in the number of by-elections as a result of the lengthy term because, if it seems that people are not lasting the distance and that by-elections are the result, some of the cost savings that the government has referred to by keeping the status quo might evaporate.

For now, my position is that I will not support the amendment but I look forward to revisiting this issue after we have been able to evaluate the experience of the first round of four year terms.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I indicate that I will not be supporting this amendment. One point raised by the Hon Mark Parnell was that these are voluntary positions and perhaps a four year term is a greater impost on people who would like to be elected to council. Being elected to a local council is a responsible position and it could be that some people would run for election on a local council to get a specific project through in a three year time frame, but to then have to stay on for an extra year might be an impost on them. I believe that this would sort out the wheat from the chaff, and people who understand the dedication, responsibility and commitment that is required to be on a local council would be elected.

I believe that part of the thinking behind this was also to get the community used to the cycle of elections, to encourage more people to get into the flow of becoming involved in their local council elections. As I understand it, the level of participation for local council elections is lower than we would like. If it is run on the same cycle as a state election then people might, over time, become more involved in local government elections than they are now.

Also, an indication from the LGA that it does not support this amendment should speak volumes for us. It is not yet a completed cycle as we have not yet gone through a full four year term. I do not quite understand the Hon. Stephen Wade's logic that we would be sure about this at the beginning rather than at the end, because we do not do trials like that. We do not trial these sorts of things on the basis of the outcomes at the beginning. I am not going to rave on, but I will not be supporting this amendment for the reasons that the minister has given. I think they make common sense. The LGA has also indicated that it does not support this amendment.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I will not be supporting the amendment either. I am sympathetic to it. I think the point about four years being a long time for a voluntary position is a strong one. I think it is also interesting that, in this parliament, we will be considering reducing the term of legislative councillors from eight to four years. That seems to imply that there is a balance between stability and not losing touch with the community and being brought back to account on a frequent basis. I think that is interesting in the context of local government, but I do not think the case has been made to unpick what was a fairly major change not so long ago, so I will not be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I take this opportunity to clarify my remarks at the suggestion of the Hon. Ann Bressington. The reason I do not believe that we need to wait until the end of a local government term to make some initial assessment of the relevance of a three year or four year term is that the decision whether or not to nominate for a local government position is not made at the end of the local government term; it is made at the beginning. At the beginning of the last local government elections, people were faced with a four year term rather than a three year term. It was at that point we knew whether that was a disincentive.

I would like to pick up the suggestion that the Hon. Mark Parnell made, because I think it would be very unfortunate if the parliament continued to rely on the policies of the LGA alone on this matter. After all, the point I made is that the people who sit on the LGA bodies to decide these policies are the people who did not find it a disincentive—people who, for whatever reason, are able to make a four year commitment. So, I think the Hon. Mark Parnell's suggestion that we should be looking to qualitative research is a good one. I think we should be looking for research that attempts to access people who might be considering being a council candidate, not just those who go on to be members.

In that regard, I ask the minister: is it intended that there be an independent review after this local government election, and will she give an undertaking to carry out the qualitative research that the Hon. Mark Parnell suggested?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been informed that the number of nominations for the last local government election compared with the previous one—that is, those going for a three year term versus those facing the prospect of a four year term—was roughly the same. So, there is nothing to support what the member is saying, that somehow the prospect of a four year term has suddenly scared away people nominating for local government elections.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: That is very fascinating, minister, but that has nothing to do with my question. Can I have an answer to my question?

The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Hon. R.P. Wortley): Are there any further questions?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am still waiting for an answer to my question. The minister gave me an answer to a very interesting question, but I did not ask it.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Have you answered it, minister?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I believe I have. If there is an outstanding question, I would love to hear it.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I will ask the question again if the minister had trouble understanding it. Will the minister undertake to have an independent review into these local government elections and will she undertake, as the Hon. Mark Parnell suggested, as I understand it, that there be qualitative research into the impact of various factors, including the length of the term for candidates who decide whether or not to run?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government will, indeed, be prepared to listen to feedback following the outcome of the next election. We are prepared to monitor responses to that, and we are prepared to consult with the LGA in terms of any further proposed changes that might be worthy of consideration.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: So, there are no plans at this stage for an independent review similar to the one that happened after the 2007 election?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have given my response. I have outlined quite clearly what our actions will be in relation to this.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: Do we have a gender breakdown of the candidates who stood for the last local government elections?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: We do not have that with us, but I can find out that information. I doubt that we will be able to give that information to the honourable member this evening, but I am happy to get that breakdown and give it to him.

New clause negatived.

New clause 4A.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I move:

Page 3, after line 17—After clause 4 insert:

4A—Amendment of section 6—Supplementary elections

(1) Section 6(2)(b)(iii)—Delete '(disregarding the office of mayor)'

(2) Section 6(3)(b)—Delete '(other than mayor)'

This simple amendment seeks to remove the current limitation caused by the current wording of section 6 that prevents a council which is carrying a casual vacancy under section 6(2)(b) and then a subsequent mayoral vacancy to hold a by-election for both vacancies. This recently occurred when the member for Frome exited his mayoral position in Port Pirie. As members would be aware, the Local Government Association has sought this amendment solely on the argument that, if a by-election is to be held, the council should not be prevented from filling all vacancies at that election. This is common sense. I urge members to give it consideration and support the amendment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I advise that Family First had an identical amendment. We support the Hon. Ms Bressington's amendment. It makes sense. It streamlines and makes efficiency gains, as well as helping the ratepayers and the councils. We strongly support the amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government will be supporting this amendment. In 2007 the independent review of local government elections consulted widely on all matters concerning local government elections. Amongst other things, the review asked: what changes, if any, should be made to the rules on casual vacancies and supplementary elections? In its interim report published in 2007, the review canvassed all suggestions made in response to that question. No concerns were expressed about the operations of section 6(2) of the act at that time.

This matter was raised early in 2009 when a supplementary election was necessary for the position of the Mayor of Port Pirie at the same time that the council was already carrying a vacancy for a councillor. Under the council's own policy, the council had elected not to replace the casual councillor vacancy. Some persons formed the view that the circumstances surrounding that election and what became a subsequent vacancy for two councillors indicated a problem with the operation of section 6 of the act.

This point of view was put to the government by the Chief Executive of the Port Pirie council. I was not persuaded at that time that it was a matter that required legislative amendment. Since the development of this bill, however, I am aware that this matter is of concern to the Local Government Association. I am now therefore persuaded by the arguments presented and note that councils can still set their own policies in relation to this issue even with this amendment.

I note that this amendment has also been filed by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire, and therefore the government is supportive of it.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The opposition supports the amendment also.

New clause inserted.

Clause 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Page 3, lines 28 and 29 [clause 6, inserted section 13A(1)(a)]—Delete paragraph (a)

This amendment proposes to strike out section 13A(1)(a), which intends to give the Electoral Commissioner the responsibility to educate the public about the role and functions of local government. The LGA has expressed a concern that this is not the role of the Electoral Commissioner, and the opposition supports that position. Our view is that it is not for the Electoral Commissioner or for the state government to define local government or how local government develops.

There is a diversity of view, even within the local government sector, as to the role and function of local government. Perhaps at the state level we could see it as being the leader of a cheer squad for the roads, rates and rubbish view of local government. The Treasurer, Mr Foley, denigrated local government with that phrase on FIVEaa in the past month. However, the fact of the matter is that some councils see that as their primary raison d'être, and they will cling to that and have a narrow view of their purpose.

There are other councils, particularly some of the metropolitan councils, that take an extremely broad view of their purview. For example, they will become involved in community service development—community development in the broader sense of the word—crime prevention strategies and a whole raft of services in their jurisdiction, and those councils will look totally different from local governments with a narrower focus.

I think it is within the right of each local government body—for that matter, each local government constituency—to decide what their local government will look like. It is not for the state government, or the Electoral Commissioner as an agent of the state government, to start defining another tier of government.

I would also contrast this with the general educative role in relation to state and federal elections. I think it would be fair to say that there is much more unanimity within the state parliament and the federal parliament as to what are the roles of those parliaments. We do not get the same diversity of view as we do in local government and it is not as contended.

The opposition believes that it is inappropriate for the Electoral Commissioner to be drawn into this debate. We believe it is appropriate for the Local Government Association, the broader local government community, independent local government bodies and local government communities to define what local government will be now and in the future. It is not the role of the state government.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes the Hon. Stephen Wade's amendment. The LGA does not support the Electoral Commissioner or the returning officer having the responsibility for educating the public about the role and functions of local government and its council members. It has made its views very clear on this. However, the independent review recommended the inclusion of this provision.

The review considered that it was unwise to try to promote local government elections without putting elections in a context. In short, any advertising campaign needs to explain why an elector should bother to vote. This requires educating the elector about the role and functions of local government and elected members. It is a very basic function that we are talking about.

The LGA's view, reflected by the honourable member's amendment, seems to be that these two aspects of election promotion should be kept separate: the Electoral Commissioner should promote some aspects, particularly the administrative type roles, and the LGA should reserve for itself the role of educating the public about the role and functions of local government elected members—so, that general educative function.

It is not practical to try to divorce that aspect of election promotion from the other aspects of promoting the conduct of an election. A single advertising campaign can and should explain both why and how to vote, so there are some economies of scale in giving both of those roles to the Electoral Commissioner. They can perform both roles pretty much at the same time—not necessarily exclusively, but predominantly so. The bill requires the Electoral Commissioner to consult with the LGA for that purpose, but it would be unworkable to prohibit the Electoral Commissioner from authorising campaign advertisements that deal with both these elements.

I bring to honourable members' attention the fact that this does not prevent the LGA from conducting an education campaign. There is nothing in this bill that prevents the LGA, or any other individual council, contributing its own education campaign to the election process—in fact, they are encouraged to do so, for some of the very reasons that the honourable member has picked up. Individual councils might have slightly different perspectives and a slightly different range of issues, so they would be encouraged to do that. This bill does not prevent that from happening. What it does is ensure a reasonable standard of education attached to election campaigns.

The participation rate in local councils, on average, is 31.6 per cent, and it is a disgrace. That participation rate currently relies on the education campaigns of the LGA and local councils. That current activity is generating a 31.6 per cent participation rate, and it is not good enough. The independent review has identified that that is not good enough, and we as citizens should not accept that level of participation rate. The independent review determined that there are a number of elements contributing to that low participation rate, including a lack of general public understanding or basic knowledge around the role, function and importance of local government and the incredibly valuable contribution that it makes to our community. The Electoral Commissioner being made responsible for a general educational aspect would enhance that situation, as well as provide education and information around the mechanisms of the election itself. It is a commonsense approach, and it addresses some of the appallingly low participation rates that we have in South Australia.

I also want to put this on the record: the Electoral Commission has a similar general educative role in relation to elections, so it is very similar to what is happening at state government level. Also, it is a practice similar to that occurring in other jurisdictions (New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland). I need to say that there is some variation around the education role within those jurisdictions, but all those jurisdictions have some general education capacity within their legislation. So this is nothing outstandingly and outrageously ahead of its time. This is just a very sensible approach to dealing with a serious problem.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Family First supports the amendment. Frankly, best placed to specifically home in on improving voter numbers at council elections is the LGA. It is passionate, committed and well structured, and it represents all the councils across the state. My observation is that the State Electoral Commission has enough to do as it is. I am not sure how significant the budget increase will be, and the minister might like to tell us how much the budget will be increased so that the State Electoral Commission can do this, not only for direct input into advertising and other promotion but also in terms of staff numbers.

The other point is that we are always negative about the fact that only about 33 per cent of ratepayers bother to vote. I know the LGA and councils want to see this percentage lifted but, whilst everyone resents paying any taxes (whether they be council rates or others), there is an argument that the people comprising that 33 per cent show a real interest and make a deliberative vote that way, and other people who do not vote are probably not all that focused on or committed to what is happening with regard to their ward councillors and mayors. I think that the body best positioned to improve the voting outcome at the next election and into the future is clearly the LGA.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I ask the minister a question about an issue that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire has raised; that is, where is the money coming from? I believe it will be determined as an across-the-board figure that councils will contribute to the Electoral Commission for these advertising campaigns. I would like to hear from the minister about how those amounts are determined. Is it council by council? Is it based on their budgets? Will their budgets have to be adjusted to find that money? How will the funding work?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The determination around the budget will be made by the Electoral Commissioner. The funds will be sourced from local councils, as it is currently. The Electoral Commissioner will be required to consult with the LGA regarding the setting of the budget. We believe that the budget for this will also be sourced from savings that councils will derive from the maintenance of the voters' roll. Within this bill, we are proposing amendments to the way voters' rolls are maintained. Currently, it is quite costly and arduous. Those changes would generate some costs savings for local councils and we believe that those savings will help fund the election.

A budget has not been determined as yet. The Electoral Commissioner would consult with the LGA around that. Clearly, the commissioner's objective would be to ensure a very responsible approach is taken in the same way that the commissioner does the state election. They are certainly not renowned for being extravagant. They would be looking to ensure that any cost imposts are kept to a minimum. At the moment, the amount that local councils spend on elections is quite arbitrary. Some local councils spend considerable amounts of money, and for those councils it is likely that the cost impost would be quite minimal because they would be spending roughly that amount, anyway.

However, I do accept that some councils would spend a minimal amount on council elections. In fact, it is quite disturbing to see how little some councils spend on elections. For those councils, there would be a cost impost. As I said, we hope to offset that with the savings generated around the efficiencies to the voters' roll. The Electoral Commissioner will be required to consult with the LGA. The Electoral Commissioner is a very responsible person in the way she conducts her activities.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I thank the minister for her response. She is talking about savings around the voters' roll. Could the minister outline what that means and how that would work?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Currently, local councils are required to maintain rolls for people who own property in a particular council area but who do not live in the area, or who live in the area and who have an additional property as well. It could be commercial premises which they rent out. There is a residents' roll that is quite easy to put together because it is similar to that of the House of Assembly. So councils are required to maintain another voters' roll, which lists property owners and non-residential voters, for instance, people who might own a property, which is a holiday unit, as well as other business properties or properties that are being rented out.

Local councils find this an extremely costly and arduous task, and a later amendment deals in more detail with the specific costs. They have said that it is a very costly and arduous exercise. The bill seeks to remove the requirements for individual councils to maintain that roll and shift that responsibility to an opt-in arrangement where property owners would indicate whether or not they wanted to vote. They would opt in and register on the electoral roll. It would be a much simpler and less costly and arduous task for councils.

The LGA supports the proposal, so the LGA is supporting the proposed changes to the voters' roll. Although we are not suggesting that these savings would completely offset the costs of an education and information campaign, nevertheless, we believe they would help to contribute to offset those costs.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: On what basis does the minister think some councils are spending very little on education campaigns? My understanding is that the Local Government Association already levies its members. The state government is deciding that it wants to take over a function from local government and impose another levy on South Australian ratepayers, so local councils will not only be having that levy transferred but also be losing control over it through the LGA.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The first point I would like to make is that I have been advised that for the last election the LGA levied metro councils around $700 and $300 for country councils. I go back to the basic premise of my argument, which is that whatever they have been spending—that plus whatever additional moneys they spend—is resulting in a 31.6 per cent participation rate. Whatever we are currently doing clearly is not working; it is inadequate. Putting that aside, the interim report, referring to requested information about council expenditure on the election promotion for recent elections, states:

Thirty-nine councils reported on their spending. Although one council reported expenditure over $6 per enrollee [or per voter], 33 councils reported on expenditure of less than 50¢ per [voter] and 23 councils reported expenditure of 10¢ or less for each [voter].

It goes on to talk about the $700 and $300. So, you can see that there are some councils—and only some; not all—that are spending very little on the promotion of council elections. I just reiterate that, irrespective of whether or not you think that is a lot, the bottom line is that we are currently facing participation of 31.6 per cent, and that is not good enough. We need to put in place some changes that seek to improve the level of participation and improve people's knowledge and understanding of the importance and value that local government contributes to our community.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I rise to indicate that I will not be supporting this amendment. One of the reasons is that it has been suggested to me that there are some councils that lie pretty low around election time and that it is just easier for the councillors and members that are there to slip through that phase and not promote those local elections a great deal. I know of one instance where a particular person was basically held over in a local council for about 10 years. Local residents were not particularly happy with the performance, but they missed the election.

I think it is very important that, as the minister says, with such a low rate of participation in local government elections, this starts to become more centralised and more organised and that the South Australian public is educated equally about the importance of these elections, how to vote, when to vote and all that sort of thing. If it can be done from one particular central point and there is a system and a process, then I think that can only improve, over time, the interest in local government elections and the number of people participating.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Just to assist the committee, I might put the Greens' position on this. As I understand it, much of the government's argument revolves around the problem with the low rate of participation, and I accept that the participation rate is too low. The question for us is whether the answer to that low rate of participation is the inclusion of a specific power for our electoral authorities to take on the role of educating the public about the role and function of local government and elected members.

I am not convinced that inserting that role into an electoral act will make the difference. I do accept what the Local Government Association says—that this education role is primarily its role—but I do not think that we need to get too hung up on this demarcation of responsibility, because I note that, in the amendment, the Hon. Stephen Wade is seeking to strike out paragraph (a) but he is not seeking to strike out paragraph (c), and paragraph (c) makes it the job of the returning officer to encourage voting at elections.

Inevitably, a campaign to encourage people to vote at elections will talk about why elections are important and what people are being asked to do by voting in a local council election. There will, inevitably, be material which talks about the importance of local council elections, and the campaign will, no doubt, highlight the important things that councils do. So, many of the things that are referred to in paragraph (a) will, inevitably, also be part of paragraph (c).

For the reasons that the Hon. Stephen Wade and local government has given, I do not think we need to entrench our electoral authorities with the primary role—and this is paragraph (a), after all—of educating the public about local councils. If the low participation rate is a problem, then increasing the overall spend by our electoral authorities on matters such as paragraph (c), encouraging voting at elections, could well make an improvement.

That is not to say that local councils themselves cannot do more. I think the Local Government Association representatives who are following this debate will have picked up that there is some concern in this chamber about the variable performance of different councils, where some do not put a lot of effort into education, but I think that can be dealt with in a different way. I do not think that we need paragraph (a) in this clause of the bill.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (11)
Brokenshire, R.L. Dawkins, J.S.L. Hood, D.G.E.
Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I. Parnell, M.
Ridgway, D.W. Schaefer, C.V. Stephens, T.J.
Wade, S.G. (teller) Winderlich, D.N.
NOES (8)
Bressington, A. Finnigan, B.V. Gago, G.E. (teller)
Gazzola, J.M. Holloway, P. Hunter, I.K.
Wortley, R.P. Zollo, C.


Majority of 3 for the ayes.

Amendment thus carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Page 4, lines 13 to15 [clause 7, inserted paragraph (a)]—Delete 'person is enrolled as an elector for the House of Assembly in respect of a place of residence within the area or ward; and' and substitute:

person—

(i) is enrolled as an elector for the House of Assembly in respect of a place of residence within the area or ward; or

(ii) is a ratepayer in respect of rateable property within the area or ward and is the sole owner of that rateable property; or

(iii) is a ratepayer in respect of rateable property within the area or ward, is the sole occupier of that rateable property, and is not a resident in respect of that rateable property; and

Honourable members may have noted that there are a number of consequential amendments hanging on this clause. The Liberal opposition seeks to retain voting rights for ratepayers who do not live in a district, without the need for four-yearly application. The Liberal Party opposes the change proposed in this bill because it believes that, if it is democratic for people to get a vote, their democratic rights should not be subject to hurdles to which other voters are not subject. Apparently, the government considers that some votes are not a right but a conditional privilege; if you do not use them you lose them. Under this bill, you need to keep reaffirming your right to a vote to retain it.

The opposition believes that, if it is democratic for certain ratepayers to have a vote, they should not be discouraged from exercising that right. Requiring them to continually reapply is a discouragement. After all, in a voluntary voting regime they vote with their feet by not voting, and that should be true for all ratepayers.

In relation to the last clause, we saw how central to the minister's arguments was the need to increase voter turn-out numbers. However, one really has to ask: if 19 per cent (which I understand is the voter turn-out for this second class of voters) is so low that it justifies a purge of the roll, what is so magical about the next 12 per cent, which takes us to 31 per cent? Should we not put on them some sort of punishment? Clearly, the government has a prejudice against this class of voters.

I think it would be helpful if I quoted some correspondence I have received to remind honourable members of the sort of objectionable people with whom the government is trying to deal. The Southern and Hills Local Government Association has written to me in the following terms:

The government proposes this change as a strategy to raise the voter participation rate in local government elections, purging those who now have a vote but may not exercise it from the roll. By requiring this class of electors to undergo a commitment test prior to each election, the strategy is that only the very interested will complete the registration and then vote. The argument is that there will be less cost than maintaining the roll in the current manner. These provisions will impact on those councils that have a high proportion of shacks and holiday homes in the area. There are several member councils that would be affected by these proposed changes. This association is opposed to these changes as certain ratepayers will be required to separately register to vote, thus creating two classes of ratepayers. It should also be noted that some councils affected have completed their representation reviews based on their current electoral roll should the representation provisions be enacted and a reduction in registration result. As planned by the government, the outcome will be variants of greater than 10 per cent of representation that could continue for eight years should Part 2 of the bill also be enacted.

I remind the committee of the constituent councils of the Southern and Hills Local Government Association. They are: the Adelaide Hills Council, Alexandrina Council, Barossa Council, Kangaroo Island Council, the District Council of Mt Barker, the Rural City of Murray Bridge, City of Victor Harbor, and the District Council of Yankalilla. What these councils share in common is that they have a significant 'seachange' element, for want of a better word. People choose to holiday there, and for many people, particularly Adelaide people, they choose to retire there. The fact that they are currently not residents does not mean that they do not have a real stake in how those communities develop. The fact that they should be treated as second-class voters and be required to renew every four years, as the association highlighted, is offensive. Whilst I have not been able to verify the following statistics, I understand that Yankalilla, Kangaroo Island and Robe have 46 per cent, 54 per cent, and 60 per cent non resident ratepayers respectively.

Much of the government's argument is based on the administrative burden of compiling a separate voters' roll, compared to the relative ease of using only the House of Assembly electoral roll. However, anyone who does not reside in the district and has an entitlement to vote would need to register prior to every local government election.

I make the point to the committee that councils will already have to maintain the ratepayers' list for this class of voters in any event. I am sure they are not going to say, 'Well, we're going to take your vote away, but, don't worry, you don't have to pay rates any more.' Renewals, I would also suggest, are a significant administrative burden. An automatic purging adds the cost of needing, for those people who do choose to renew, to renew them; whereas, if you do not purge, you do not have that cost. In this regard, I quote another letter that I received as follows:

The rationale for this reform as presented in the explanatory guide is that the administrative task of compiling this additional component of the voters' roll is considered to be an unnecessary use of scarce resources. In our view this argument is seriously flawed. Considering councils generally appear to have no trouble with maintaining a database of landlord details for the purpose of sending rates notices to argue that it is too much of a burden to include these same people on the supplementary roll does not hold true. We view this proposal as a backdoor attempt to disenfranchise many, which, in the context of the shared goal to improve democratic participation in local government, runs counter to state government policy.

I thought that was an interesting observation. If the goal is to increase democratic participation, why try to throw people off the roll? If the goal is not merely to get up a stat but to actually foster democratic participation in community government, the opposition submits that this would be seen as a negative proposal. I urge members to support my amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government does not support this amendment. Amendments 3 to 15 and amendments 17 and 21 on file in the name of the Hon. Stephen Wade reflect a single policy position, and these 15 various amendments reflect the honourable member's view that something very close to the status quo should prevail in respect of property franchises and the electoral roll.

The honourable member's amendments would ensure that property franchisees would continue to be sent ballot papers in the mail without their needing to enrol for elections. These amendments would thwart the central recommendations of the independent review and undermine one of the central purposes of this bill. I remind honourable members that the independent review's overall thrust and major fundamental reform to be affected by this bill would be, in the words of the independent review:

To divert resources away from what the review sees as unnecessarily administrative tasks associated with compiling a separate voters roll and towards activities that heighten awareness of the role of local government and elected members, its elections and individual candidates for election.

The honourable member's amendments would ensure that these unnecessary administrative tasks continue. The honourable member's amendments, if they were to be successful, would lead to the unnecessary demise of many trees. These trees would need to be pulped to produce ballot papers to send to tens of thousands of people who have historically shown that they do not want the ballot papers and will not return them even if we do post them out to them. It would perpetuate an anomaly that South Australia is the only state where this entitlement to automatic enrolment still exists.

In 2007, considerable research was undertaken on this topic by the independent review, and the results of that research are published on pages 76 to 82 of the review's interim report. I do not know whether the honourable member has acquainted himself with that research. Before local government elections in 2006 and previously, the council had to ensure that its voters' roll was up to date and that the roll of property franchisees did not contain any names that were also on the roll as residents. The process of checking for and removing duplicate names is not a simple task. The independent review attempted to estimate the administrative cost of updating the property franchisees' roll and the voters' roll, as required.

The independent review carried out a survey on the topic, and the results of the survey were published in the form of a graph, on page 81 of the review's interim report. The data leads to obvious questions, as follows. Why should councils take so much time and trouble to enrol people who do not care about voting? Why should they do this when it does not happen in other states and what is the point? Why is this money effectively wasted before every local government election? Surely, it would be more practical and efficient to allow those who want to enrol to do so and leave the others undisturbed.

The independent review recommended this reform, and the government accepted the recommendation. The LGA is strongly in favour of this reform. In fact, when I have visited councils—and I have visited a large number of councils, both metropolitan and country—I have been overwhelmed by councils congratulating the government on such a sensible amendment. Although I know there are some councils that do not agree with this, the overwhelming majority do support it and see it as a release from an unnecessary burden.

The other issue is that, arguably, it is simply unfair to allow the status quo to continue. If we look more closely, property franchise is a voting entitlement that is unique to local government, in addition to any voting entitlement of a resident. Its existence represents a departure from the principle of one person, one vote.

Nowhere else—not state elections, commonwealth elections or anywhere else—does a property owner in an electorate get a second vote in that electorate. In any other level of government it is one person, one vote. Just because you hold property or some other investment in another electorate does not entitle you to a second vote. It is an anomaly.

To acknowledge and claim this very special additional entitlement, it is appropriate that in an election year an entitled person or body corporate or group is invited to indicate an interest in and continued eligibility to vote in a local government election. That is a fair and reasonable thing to put in place. It is compulsory for resident Australian citizens to enrol for commonwealth elections; once you are on the commonwealth roll, the general rule is that you will be automatically enrolled for state elections and also for local government elections. The point is that no-one gets a vote in either commonwealth or state elections without enrolling for that purpose.

It is an anomaly that, under the Local Government Elections Act, property franchisees (in contrast to residents) do not need to take action to enrol. They have an additional privilege, but they do not need to take any extra action to claim it. This bill provides that, if they want to exercise this privilege, they ought to take action to claim it, and it is not a particularly onerous task.

The honourable member's amendment suggests that ratepayers should keep subsidising the administrative costs of this privilege. That is what he is saying: ratepayers should keep subsidising the administration of that privilege. Why should they? This is not just a matter of cost: it is a matter of fairness and equity and, if you are entitled to this additional vote, you should simply claim it. So, the government will be opposing this series of amendments moved by the Hon. Stephen Wade.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Picking up on the minister's last comments, did the government consider putting a requirement on property franchisees that they enrol to vote but, once enrolled, for that to be automatically renewed as it is in state and commonwealth elections, if that is the model? Has it considered that option?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The assertion that the honourable member makes, I believe, is quite incorrect, because property franchisees are not enrolled in commonwealth or state elections. They do not exist on those rolls. This is an anomaly that occurs only in local government. The advice I have received in relation to that ongoing entitlement is that there is a degree of movement and change in relation to ownership. So, in order to capture and keep those rolls up to date, it is fair and reasonable that those property owners enrol before each election. It keeps the roll up to date.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The minister keeps flipping between vague comments against the legitimacy of the property franchise, which she seems to imply is illegitimate, and the appropriate processes to maintain enrolment for those property franchisees. Is it the government's view that property franchises are an anachronism that should be removed? If so, why hasn't the government moved to remove them?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The honourable member is just being silly. That does not deserve an answer, because he is just being silly. I know that he is better than this in terms of his debate. The government has enshrined in legislation a right for property franchisees. If we did not believe they were entitled, we would not have included them in the legislation. They are there. We are saying they do have a right, but they have to claim their right; it is fair and reasonable that they do claim their right, and it is not fair and reasonable that ratepayers continue to subsidise those who do not even bother to vote, who stay on the roll but do not vote. I think it is about 19 per cent or something; the rate is abysmal. That is an enormous cost impost for ratepayers. Why should they subsidise that level of cost?

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I will not enter the debate on the desirability—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: The silliness of the opposition.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I disagree with the minister that it is a silly debate. I am no big fan of the property franchise, but I do accept the minister's argument that the cross-subsidy between residents and other absentee property owners, for example, who historically do not vote, can be addressed through the government's amendments to this bill. I do not support going back to the status quo, and therefore I will not be supporting the Hon. Stephen Wade's amendments, of which I note there are very many which effectively relate to this same topic.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I will be supporting the government, although with some reluctance. My reluctance comes from the fact that, if a class of voters has a right to vote, they should be treated like any other voter, and therefore the same efforts should be made to enrol them and keep them on the electoral roll. However, my main concern is that I just do not think there should be a property franchise. I think it is an archaic, mediaeval notion that we only relatively recently got rid of entirely in terms of state and federal parliaments—and federal parliament for some time now.

We would not consider for a moment at the state level or the federal level that somehow the right to property gave you the right to an additional vote. That would be seen as a completely absurd and old-fashioned idea. I think what we have here is probably a government that perhaps, in its heart of hearts, holds this view but is reluctant to take action on it and so takes this administrative route. I think there are some dangers when we start—

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I am suggesting a loss of nerve as you approach the finish line. I think what we have here is an electoral fossil, which is the property franchise.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Don Dunstan is turning in his grave.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: Don Dunstan is spinning like one of those little X-Lotto machines.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I think it was directly related to the philosophy of the amendment. I believe that this is very archaic and that the government should have gone further and moved to abolish the property franchise and bring local government into the 20th century, if not the 21st century. However, as one small step towards chipping away at this illegitimate old fossil of the electoral system, I suppose this amendment represents some very small measure of progress.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (7)
Dawkins, J.S.L. Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I.
Ridgway, D.W. Schaefer, C.V. Stephens, T.J.
Wade, S.G. (teller)
NOES (12)
Bressington, A. Brokenshire, R.L. Finnigan, B.V.
Gago, G.E. (teller) Gazzola, J.M. Holloway, P.
Hood, D.G.E. Hunter, I.K. Parnell, M.
Winderlich, D.N. Wortley, R.P. Zollo, C.
PAIRS (2)
Lawson, R.D. Darley, J.A.

Majority of 5 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 5—

Line 13 [clause 7(8), inserted subsection (3c)]—After 'enrolment' insert:

in respect of an area or ward

Lines 20 and 21 [clause 7(8), inserted subsection (3c)(b)(i)]—Delete 'by virtue of another entitlement in an area or ward' and substitute:

for the area or ward by virtue of another entitlement to vote

Lines 25 and 26 [clause 7(8), inserted subsection (3c)(b)(ii)]—Delete '(whether as a designated person or under' and substitute:

for the area or ward (whether as a designated person or by virtue of

Although there are three amendments for this clause in my name, all three deal with the one matter. Taken together, the three amendments merely seek to clarify what has been identified as an apparent ambiguity within the bill. Clause 7(8) as is currently worded would seem to prevent a property owner with land in more than one ward from being enrolled in an additional ward or wards of a council area. This was not the government's intention and it would be inconsistent with the provisions in clause 7(1). Therefore, these amendments merely clarify the policy that each ward is a separate election, and that having a property franchise entitlement in one ward does not disqualify a person from having a separate property franchise entitlement in another ward.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The opposition supports the amendments.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Page 6, after line 20—Insert:

(14a) A person is entitled, on payment of the fees fixed by the council, to a copy of the voters' roll in printed form.

This amendment seeks to retain the provisions for any person to purchase a printed copy of the roll. The opposition agrees with the government that an electronic roll need not be provided in relation to local government elections. The view has been put to the opposition that provision of an electronic roll would facilitate direct mailing, but the opposition is concerned that local government needs to stay local, and facilitating mass communications in this way could well put local government elections and service beyond the ability of citizens of lesser means. We believe that it is appropriate, however, to maintain the established practice of access to the printed roll.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment. The amendment seeks to make the voters' roll available in printed form to any member of the public. This is the current situation and this amendment therefore seeks to maintain the status quo. The government has taken the view that it is not appropriate for the voters' roll to be available potentially to marketing companies and others for purposes that may be entirely unrelated to elections. There is a perception of abuse which we need to deal with here. A ratepayer would not expect that, once they went onto it, the roll would be used for anything other than election purposes.

Making it available to any member of the public increases the chances that that roll could be used for other purposes. The Electoral (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill proposes amendments to restrict the availability of the electoral roll to the public. It would be futile to restrict the availability of the electoral roll under the Electoral Act 1985 if the same voters' roll was also available for a fee under the Local Government Elections Act 1999. Therefore, this bill makes complementary amendments to restrict the supply of the voters' roll to election candidates.

The honourable member wants to keep making the roll available to marketing companies and potentially anyone who walks off the street. We do not find this acceptable and therefore we will oppose the amendment.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I think we might be treading on standing orders here because we are referring to an act that has not been passed yet. However, my understanding of the electoral bill before the committee is that, amongst other purposes, those rolls can be made available only for certain purposes. In fact, the relevant clause provides:

...the distribution of matter calculated to affect the result of a state, commonwealth or local government election or purpose relating to the holding of such elections is excluded from misuse.

In other words, you are permitted to use it for those purposes. Considering that the minister is suggesting that the government's concern is abuse of the roll, surely that provision is overarching; and if people are using the printed roll available under the Local Government Act for a purpose other than local government elections they would be guilty of an offence under the state Electoral Act.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The advice I have been given is that, under the Electoral Act, those provisions would apply only if the roll was given under that act.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Can the minister inform us whether there have been any complaints of abuse of a local government roll?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Only anecdotally. Members of the public hold a perception that the rolls could be abused. It is only anecdotal but, certainly, given the degree of junk mail that comes through people's letterboxes, they wonder where their names and addresses are coming from and are suspicious that the electoral roll could be abused. However, as I said, it is only anecdotal.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would also indicate my concern that, if a printed roll is not available to members of the public, we would have the situation where it is very difficult to challenge the quality of the roll. If the roll is available to members of the public, they can check whether dead people are still there and do the sort of roll cleansing that can be done through public scrutiny of the roll, and not making it available to the public is a risk.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: That is not the role and function of the general public. Those candidates are able to perform that function as well. My understanding is that it is the role of the Electoral Commission to keep that roll up to date for the House of Assembly. So, the Electoral Commission does its enrolment drives and cleans up the roll in the lead-up to state elections. It is funded to carry out that role and I think it performs it quite well, and it is that role that forms the integrity of the local government roll, except of course for property owners.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: This is really the same debate that we had when we were dealing with the state electoral laws. We went to some length in that debate to make sure that electoral rolls were used primarily for electoral purposes and that they were not used by insurance companies or real estate agents or anyone else to spam us with unwarranted material.

I think the situation would exist if the Hon. Stephen Wade's amendment were to pass where it would undo the amendments we either have already made or may soon make to the state electoral laws, whereby anyone who was caught using an electoral roll for improper commercial purposes would simply say, 'Well, I got mine through the local government election act; I didn't get it through the state election act,' and therefore it would undermine what we have been trying to do.

I think there are other issues around candidates and prospective candidates being able to have access to the roll. We will deal with those amendments later on. However, for now, I am not convinced that making the roll available to anyone who wants to buy it is in fact the way to go in an era where people have more rights to protect their privacy. Someone might have gone to great lengths to keep themselves out of the phone book—for example, they might have signed up for the Do Not Call Register. There is a range of things that we are putting in place and yet we could undo it with one simple motion by allowing anyone who has the money to pay for it to find out exactly our full name and address. I am not inclined to support the amendment.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I indicate that I will not be supporting the amendment, for all the reasons outlined by the Hon. Mark Parnell and others.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I move:

Page 6, lines 21 to 26 [clause 8(4), inserted subsection (15)]—

Delete inserted subsection (15) and substitute:

(15) At any time between the close of nominations and polling day for an election, a nominated candidate for the election is entitled to obtain from the relevant council—

(a) a copy, in printed form, of the voters roll for the area (and he or she may, during that period, obtain further copies, in printed form, of the voters roll from the council on payment of the fees fixed by the council); and

(b) a copy, in electronic form, of that part of the voters roll for the area that sets out particulars of enrolled voters who are not resident at a place of residence in the area.

This is very similar to the issue we have just been discussing, which is about the availability of the electoral roll. My amendment proposes that that part of the roll that relates to non-resident voters should be made available to candidates. The rationale for that is that, if a person wants to contact all voters, the people who live there can be doorknocked but the people who do not live there cannot be contacted in any other way, reasonably, other than by writing to them. If we allow candidates to write to them, we might as well provide the roll in electronic form.

I describe this amendment as a fallback. I understand that the Hon. Rob Brokenshire proposes that the whole of the electoral roll be made available to candidates in electronic form, and I support that as well. So, having stated my position clearly, I would not like the debate to proceed in such a way that the passage of my amendment somehow precluded Mr Brokenshire's, because I support his amendment but, if his was unsuccessful, I would like mine to remain as the fallback position.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 6—

Line 23 [clause 8(4), inserted subsection (15)]—After 'printed' insert:

or electronic

Line 25 [clause 8(4), inserted subsection (15)]—After 'printed' insert:

or electronic

I thank the Hon. Mark Parnell for his comments and, certainly, as a fallback position, Family First supports the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendments. These are really consequential amendments and, simply, enable the provision of an electronic copy of the council voters roll to candidates. There is also the check and balance of a significant penalty for misuse of information in the roll to overcome the sorts of issues that the minister raised with respect to the previous amendment of the Hon. Stephen Wade.

From the point of view of state and federal candidates, one way or another, they have access to not only a hard copy but also an electronic copy. We are arguing that we should be increasing voter turnout from about 33 per cent to at least 50 per cent, and I suggest that a committed candidate who wants to engage in modern opportunities with technology should be given the opportunity to go out and communicate their messages to the voters. The point is that sometimes these candidates do not get a chance to nominate or make a decision to nominate until close to the council elections, and trying to go through the very tedious situation of getting a hard copy and putting that onto a database to communicate with ratepayers, I think, is unfair.

Why do we have the privilege in both the state and the commonwealth arena, yet this clause prevents it for candidates for local government? If we have three tiers of government, then we should give fair and reasonable opportunity to all the candidates for each tier of government, and therefore I strongly support these amendments.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: In relation to the amendment of the Hon. Mark Parnell allowing candidates to receive an electronic copy of the roll that relates to non-residents, we believe it creates a distinction between those on the roll as residents and those as non-residents. Residents will receive some protection from potential misuse of the roll on which they appear as a result of the fact that candidates can only get a printed copy of the roll.

However, the same protection will not be available for those people and organisations who are entitled and who have enrolled to vote but who are not residents. No clear purpose is served by that particular amendment. The Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendments address the provision of the roll in electronic form to residents, and that is not supported by the government. These amendments have the potential to allow for a much wider distribution of the roll and therefore greater potential for misuse.

There is a much greater number of local government candidates than there are candidates for a state election. For instance, in 2006, there were 1,236 candidates for the local government election. In contrast, there were only 323 candidates for the state government election. Clearly, the potential for distribution of the roll for non-authorised purposes is much greater when you look at those numbers. As I said, it is the perception of the community that their information is not being as closely managed as they would like.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The opposition agrees with the government, and we will not be supporting either sets of amendments.

The Hon. M. Parnell's amendment negatived; the Hon. R.L. Brokenshire's amendments negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 9 and 10 passed.

Clause 11.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Page 7, lines 17 to 24 [clause 11, inserted section 19A(2)]—Delete subsection (2)

This amendment relates to the publication of candidates' statements. It is the view of the opposition that the LGA should be supported to establish a statewide website to publish candidates' profiles on the internet. However, it should not be required by legislation to do so. Essentially, the proposal is that a statewide website be established where the public can look up details of a candidate in any council district to find out more about them and their policies, and the candidates can choose to provide a link to their own website.

The proposal is that the LGA would manage the website. The LGA is open to that service but is concerned about the financial impost. At present the government has not committed to assist in funding, and I note that there is a subsequent amendment which would require the minister to engage in a funding arrangement. This amendment simply lets clause 11 facilitate the website, but does not require it.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The effect of this amendment is to leave publication as a matter of discretion for the LGA. One of the reasons identified for low voter turnout at previous local government elections is the perceived difficulty that some voters have in finding out information about candidates who are standing for election. The independent review of local government elections recommended setting up a system under which any voter anywhere could read information about any candidate by visiting a central web portal and following links.

The LGA is concerned about the cost of this proposal. However, the state government in its official response to the recommendations of the independent review agreed with the review's recommendation that the government through OSLGR would provide 'cash and/or assistance in kind i.e. web servers and the temporary services of administrative officers for web publishing'. The honourable member's statement that we have given no commitment is incorrect. In fact, that commitment is documented on record.

We have also indicated that we are prepared to consult further with the LGA in relation to the resources needed to implement this in an efficient and effective way. Indeed, it would thwart the intent of this clause of the bill if this amendment were carried and the LGA could then simply decline to provide the service. For those reasons, we will be opposing the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 7, after line 37 [clause 11, inserted section 19A]—Insert:

(6A) The minister must, in consultation with the LGA, develop a plan for the provision of funding to the LGA for the purposes of carrying out its functions under this section.

When it comes to developing websites, clearly there are costs involved. The thrust of this bill is to get more people to vote and, in order to do that, they need to know the candidates for whom they are voting. If the LGA is able to carry out its duties professionally and responsibly (as I know it will) with cooperative intent on getting more ratepayers to vote in local government elections, then in a modern society with technological availability we should be seeing a good website developed for the candidates. I believe that the state government needs to be a contributor to this process, so I ask my colleagues to look at this amendment favourably.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: As I put on the record in my previous answer, the government has committed to contribute to this website. I have already indicated that we intend to provide the LGA with cash and/or in-kind support to establish a website for candidates' profiles. This amendment seeks to restrict that support to funding. Already I have given an assurance that I will provide support and I have committed to consult with them to develop a plan for that to occur.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Can the minister indicate what sort of financial support she will be looking at providing to the LGA?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have indicated that we will consult with the LGA to develop a plan for the implementation of the system. That is yet to be done, and the final resources required will depend on that plan.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The amendment proposes to enshrine the obligation on the minister to develop a plan for funding. The minister has put on the record that her intention is to provide not only funding but in-kind and other support services which she has suggested could include the provision of computer servers or space on some government server for this material to be included.

I am happy to accept the minister's assurance that that is what she intends to do. If it turns out after the next election that the Local Government Association feels dudded and has not been supported sufficiently with either funds or in-kind resources, I would be happy to revisit it, but for now I am happy to accept the minister's assurance.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The opposition does not support the amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 12 to 19 passed.

Clause 20.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I will not be proceeding with my amendment No. 6. I move:

Page 10, line 7 [clause 20, inserted 91A(8) definition of designated decision, (c)]—After 'understanding' insert:

(other than a prescribed contract)

This is to assist local government in getting on with the job during issues around caretaker mode at election time. I believe that we need to be responsible and ensure that local government can function properly for its ratepayers during those periods just the same as state government has a caretaker role to ensure that it and the state government bureaucracy can continue to deliver for South Australians. I believe that this amendment is necessary.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Can I just clarify whether the Hon. Mr Brokenshire was moving just amendment No. 7 or amendments Nos 7 and 8?

The CHAIRMAN: He has only moved amendment No. 7 at the moment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I give notice that I will be moving my amendment No. 8 in an amended form whereby the following words are struck out: 'and in relation to which a call for tenders was made'.

The CHAIRMAN: The minister has an amendment in between those two amendments.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I realise that, but it does make sense to address both issues now, because I do not think my amendment affects his foreshadowed amendment. It is quite independent of that, so I do not think that it will complicate things.

The government opposes both these amendments. These amendments introduce the concept of a prescribed contract, which the honourable member proposes that the council would be permitted to enter during a caretaker period. It is apparent that this amendment opens up the possibility that a council could enter a potentially very controversial contract during a caretaker period. That would, of course, be contrary to the intent and purpose of the caretaker period. Controversial decisions should be postponed during the caretaker period and left to the incoming council to consider.

The problem with the honourable member's amendment is in the loose definition of 'prescribed contract'. This amendment is relaxing the restrictions that are in the bill on what type of contract a council may enter into in the caretaker period. It is, in effect, watering down the whole point of a caretaker period. One needs to examine carefully the words chosen by the honourable member to define what is to be permitted, namely, 'the provision of goods, services or any other matter that has been included in an annual business plan and budget of the council'. So, it could pertain to any related contracts; for instance, I would imagine that any hiring of staff would be captured by that. We know that the hiring of staff during caretaker periods can be very controversial indeed.

The honourable member intends that this relaxation of the rules is to apply in relation to very large contracts, ones that would otherwise be prohibited by the caretaker period. It is not too difficult to think of circumstances in which the entering of a large contract during an election campaign might be very controversial, notwithstanding that the proposal was in the annual business plan and budget.

Imagine, for example, that a council has two or three tenders to build a library, sports hall or civic centre, where millions of dollars may be involved. One tender is from a local builder, another is from a builder from a town some distance away, and a third is from a builder from interstate. Perhaps one builder has a good reputation but is more expensive, another builder might have a dubious reputation but is cheaper, and the third builder might have a previous history with the council. This is all conjecture, of course.

The decision of which builder to choose might become an election issue. Various candidates might pledge their support for one or other option, and these are obviously the sorts of scenarios that the introduction of a caretaker period is clearly trying to avoid, and so they should be avoided. The only appropriate thing to do in these circumstances is to delay such decisions and allow the voters to choose their new council and let the incoming council decide. The honourable member's amendment would permit this controversial decision to be made during an election period by an outgoing council. This is not acceptable to the government and would defeat the purpose of the caretaker period.

The government is mindful that the concept of a caretaker period should not disrupt the normal uncontroversial business of local government during an election campaign, and we proposed an amendment to make that more manageable. However, it is very important to define carefully the scope of any exceptions to the caretaker rules. The government proposes to enter discussions with the LGA so that a sensible dividing line may be drawn up, permitting routine matters to go ahead while preserving the general intent and purpose of the caretaker period. This dividing line has not been drafted yet. When a sensible version has been defined, hopefully, we will have the support to have it prescribed in the regulations.

The honourable member's amendments fall short of a practical and sensible option. They leave a large loophole that will render the caretaker period virtually ineffective and, for those reasons, we will be opposing this amendment.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If I could make some comments on the minister's response to the honourable member's amendment. She refers to the possibility of staff appointments being made under this clause. That is clearly not possible; you would not see a staff appointment made on an annual business plan and budget of council.

Secondly, the minister talks about controversial decisions being made under this clause. Well, so be it. Under the Local Government Act an annual business plan and budget are subject to consultation with the community, so if there has been consultation with the community the controversy has been had, and the community has made its decision through its democratically elected council. Why should that democratically elected council not have the opportunity to implement its plans?

The minister needs to explain to the committee why the relatively small number of decisions that would be prescribed by an annual business plan or budget should not be permitted, as this amendment foreshadows. The opposition believes it is a sensible initiative to try to make the caretaker provisions workable. We certainly support the caretaker provision and, from what the minister has said, see no reason not to support the Hon. Robert Brokenshire on this amendment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I thank the minister and the shadow minister for their comments. I ask the committee to have a very careful look at this, because I cannot understand the rationale of the minister, on behalf of the government, on this. What the Hon. Stephen Wade said is exactly right: the council has to go out and consult with the community. It is very transparent when it comes to the budget. They are elected people.

From memory, when it comes to local government the budget comes out in May or June. Tenders are called. You can have a series of tenders when doing a project, and the government could cost ratepayers an enormous amount of money by not agreeing to this clause, because they have to halt the project at a time of the year when part of that tender process is already through. All these staff are being paid, who are then held up because they cannot implement all the work that has been passed, in a very transparent and democratic way, with the ratepayers.

The final point is that, by the time the new council comes in, goes through the Christmas period and then starts to frame the next budget, you could lose six months. You could then have a massive increase in the cost of the project. I ask the minister: what is different about infrastructure, management, process and operations of state and commonwealth government compared to local government? To me there is no difference at all; work must go on.

Finally, as the Hon. Stephen Wade said, there is no way that they could be hiring staff during the caretaker period. This is specifically about carrying on with works that are approved in the annual business plan and budget.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The honourable member is right: there is no difference between state and local governments. State government is required to have a caretaker period for exactly the sorts of protections I have outlined; all we are doing is applying a similar standard to local government. That is the point. We are not requiring a different set of standards; we are requiring the same standard of local government. State government, commonwealth government, every other level of government, including many other jurisdictions around Australia, have caretaker periods for local government. It is a common, reasonable standard to protect those interests.

In relation to the Hon. Stephen Wade's claims of protections around annual business plans, the issue around local council business plans and budgets is that they cover just about all activities of local council. So, it would mean that just about any activity would be exempt or would bypass the caretaker requirements. That would also include, for instance, the acquisition and disposal of land, and large contracts—and I have outlined a scenario where, quite clearly, the outcome of that large contract could become a significant election issue. It is for those reasons that the government opposes this amendment.

The government has an amendment on file that does make some changes to the caretaker period to make that period more operational and to allow routine business to take place, unless disruptions occur. We have consulted with the LGA about that. Those amendments will make the day-to-day business more simple for local governments. We understand that local governments have to get on with their day-to-day business but, in terms of standards around caretaker periods and the potential for conflicts and influencing elections in ways they should not, we are only opposing a standard that applies to other jurisdictions.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I take it that when the minister talks about modifications to allow the normal business of council to proceed she is referring to the proposed insertion of regulations.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: That being the case, I will just quote from the minister's letter to Mayor Felicity-Ann Lewis, as President of the LGA, dated 3 September. It states:

I am considering the possibility of a government amendment to modify clause 20 so that routine council operations need not be disrupted during the caretaker period. The extent of any exceptions might be prescribed in regulations and officers from the Office of State/Local Government Relations to be discussing with the LGA a form of words that would allow the regulations to distinguish between routine commitments and those proposals which should be postponed until after an election.

Clearly, the minister knows that this provision is unworkable. In the context of the work that is referred to in the letter, can the minister advise what words have currently been drafted which are intended in the regulations she is foreshadowing?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: There has been no drafting of any regulation to date. We have committed to consult with the LGA in relation to matters that should be considered in those regulations.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I just reiterate that the opposition has consulted with the LGA. The LGA believes that this provision would make the normal business of councils more manageable in a caretaker period. We believe that is appropriate. We will be supporting the Hon. Mr Brokenshire.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Just so that I can understand the length of time of the caretaker period, the words are 'election period', and that means 'the period commencing on the day of the close of nominations for the election', which, in most cases, will finish at the conclusion of the election. What period we talking about? How long will that period normally be?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that it is around 50-odd days, depending on how the days fall, so it could be 52 or 55, but it is about that.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I am trying to work out what this would mean in practice. My guess is that, if the provisions were passed in the way that the government intends, when a council is doing its business it would have those 50 days basically marked out on its yearly planner as having no big contracts to be signed in this period. The council would have to manage its affairs so that decisions were made before that period, otherwise they would be delayed some considerable time. I understand that it can be made to work.

My concern about the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendments is that, as I understand it, he is proposing that, if a council has gone through the process of having put something in its annual business plan or its budget, that effectively overrides the caretaker period. My concern is with those words, considering cases such as the Walkerville situation not that long ago, where the election was fought over controversial contracts.

In fact, I ask the minister whether any of those contracts were entered into in what would now be regarded as the caretaker period. My recollection of that election is that the council effectively turned over. The people who did not like those contracts were elected, and they were then faced with the position of having to give effect to contracts they did not want. They were even threatened with legal action for not complying with the terms of those contracts. Can the minister shed any light on whether the Walkerville situation would have been covered by this caretaker period?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I do not have that information to hand, but we can check that. I have my suspicions, but they are not adequate to put on the record. However, I will stress that the government's view is that business plans and budgets are so broad in scope that they just about cover all business matters, so it really makes the whole notion of a caretaker period null and void, because it excludes from the caretaker period just about every matter.

Clearly, this amendment attempts to circumvent the protections that we believe should be in place in relation to a caretaker period. As I have said, it is a similar standard to other levels of government, that is, state and commonwealth levels of government. These are is not new and novel concepts. Other local governments in other jurisdictions cope quite well with caretaker periods, once they are put in place.

I draw members' attention to the fact that this is currently a four year term of office. The longer the term, the easier it is to plan ahead for an election caretaker period. Two or three year terms of office make that far more disruptive. We have a four year term of office and pretty well a fixed date for elections, so everyone knows roughly when an election will be held, and councils are able to plan well in advance in terms of their business priorities.

My understanding is that, if a contract is signed, it is able to be progressed through a caretaker period. We intend, as foreshadowed in our amendment to clause 20, to work with the LGA to identify any other provisions the LGA believes are necessary to ensure the ongoing day-to-day operations of local councils.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: As a point of clarification for the minister, I will briefly paint a picture, and I am mindful of the late hour. In relation to the state situation, we also have a fixed term; so the same argument can apply. However, what happens in practice with the state situation is that often, at the cabinet meeting before the premier goes to the Governor, a massive number of cabinet submissions are rushed through, often with capital expenditure, so that marginal seats are looked after during the election period. That is something that happens regularly, irrespective of the colour of the government.

The local government situation, by and large, is quite a bit different in that local government puts its budget together and it does not have the opportunity to make political decisions just before the commencement of the caretaker period. That is one point.

The second point is that the minister says 'if the contract is signed.' In the state situation—and I will use DTEI as an example—if a tender has been advertised and has been partly processed, my understanding is that that tender can be finalised during the caretaker period if that department has had approval from cabinet for the tender process and the appropriation has occurred. I cannot understand the minister's argument, because it does not stop that government project from continuing, nor does it become an impost on the department or the state. Minister, by opposing my amendment, you are proposing a real impost in delivery of services, outcomes, times and cost to ratepayers and councils.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: To suggest that councils are not able to make political decisions because their business plans and budgets are in place is outrageous; of course they can. The breadth and scope of their business plans and budgets are such that they could very well do that. The honourable member also knows that, if this bill were to succeed, councils would know exactly when caretaker periods were going to begin and end and be able to anticipate that in advance. It is nonsense to say that a business plan and budget will protect councils from making political decisions. It is absolute nonsense.

The CHAIRMAN: We have been a while on one amendment.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I have been listening to the debate very carefully, Mr Chairman. I am about to make a decision.

The CHAIRMAN: I am very glad about that. I was about to make one, too.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I am listening carefully to this debate and it seems to me that the minister has committed to negotiating with the LGA to exclude some types of decisions—and we do not know what they will be yet—from that definition of 'designated decision'. I guess time will tell whether the types of decisions that are excluded are, in fact, regarded as the routine business of councils.

I also note that there is a provision for a council that considers that there are extraordinary circumstances to be able to make those decisions during a caretaker period. My understanding of caretaker conventions is that, in a parliamentary-type setting where you have an official opposition and a government, the caretaker period usually means that the government consults with and gets the agreement of the opposition to make controversial decisions. It is not a prohibition on making those decisions. If the major parties all agree, then the decisions still get made, even in a caretaker period.

However, at the end of the day, I can see in this arrangement that the term of the local council will be roughly 1,400 days and the last 50 of those will have some restrictions on some types of contract, and that is the proposal for the caretaker period. I am prepared to accept the minister's amendment that she will revisit the definition of 'designated decision' by adding some extra exclusions in the regulations, so I will not be supporting the honourable member's amendment.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (9)
Brokenshire, R.L. Dawkins, J.S.L. Hood, D.G.E.
Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I. Ridgway, D.W.
Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G. Winderlich, D.N.
NOES (8)
Bressington, A. Finnigan, B.V. Gago, G.E. (teller)
Gazzola, J.M. Holloway, P. Hunter, I.K.
Parnell, M. Wortley, R.P.
PAIRS (4)
Darley, J.A. Lawson, R.D.
Schaefer, C.V. Zollo, C.

Majority of one for the ayes.

Amendment thus carried.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 10, after line 14 [clause 20, inserted section 91A(8), definition of designated decision—

After paragraph (d) insert:

other than a decision of a kind excluded from this definition by regulation;

This arises from discussion with the LGA about the effect of the proposed caretaker period. One of the purposes served by the introduction of the caretaker period is to prevent an outgoing council from binding an incoming council after an election, especially in regard to large or controversial projects or contracts. On the other hand, the caretaker period is not intended to prevent a council from undertaking normal, uncontroversial works in accordance with its business plan.

There are occasions when a large contract may, nevertheless, be described as routine and no purpose would be served by delaying the signing of such a contract for the duration of the caretaker period. The government accepts this basic principle but has not yet reached an understanding with local government about how to draw the line between the large contracts that may be regarded as routine and large contracts that should properly be left to an incoming council.

The amendment proposes that this dividing line may be drawn in regulation, and I intend to consult with the LGA over the next number of months to consider a regulation that might properly make that distinction.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I indicate that, even in the light of the amendments successfully moved by the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, the opposition still sees this as a sensible provision to allow flexibility in dealing with the implementation of this act over time.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 10, after line 21 [clause 20, inserted section 91A(8)]—Insert:

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

I remind the committee of the in-house amendment whereby the following words are struck out from my original amendment:

and in relation to which a call for tenders was made.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (9)
Brokenshire, R.L. (teller) Dawkins, J.S.L. Hood, D.G.E.
Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I. Ridgway, D.W.
Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G. Winderlich, D.N.
NOES (8)
Bressington, A. Finnigan, B.V. Gago, G.E. (teller)
Gazzola, J.M. Holloway, P. Hunter, I.K.
Parnell, M. Wortley, R.P.
PAIRS (4)
Lawson, R.D. Darley, J.A.
Schaefer, C.V. Zollo, C.

Majority of 1 for the ayes.

Amendment thus carried; clause as amended passed.

New clause 21.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 10, after line 21—Insert:

21—Amendment of section 93—Regulations.

Section 93—after subsection (2) insert:

(3) The minister should consult with the LGA before a regulation is made under this act.

The clause is straightforward. My understanding is that this is consistent with the current provisions in the Local Government Act. Given that this will obviously involve many issues relating to local government, I believe this amendment would streamline things. It would also make things a lot better if the LGA was consulted before a regulation came into this place. It may then save us some work in terms of having to disallow a regulation, because if there has not been consultation we receive representation.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government believes that this amendment is totally unnecessary. We have given a commitment to consult, and there are certain provisions where we are required to consult. However, we do not intend to oppose the amendment, because we have given that commitment anyway.

New clause inserted.

Schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendments.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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