HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2021-05-11 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Statutes Amendment (Local Government Review) Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 30 March 2021.)

Clause 119 passed.

Clauses 120 to 128 passed.

Clause 129.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I move:

Amendment No 34 [Bourke–1]—

Page 68, after line 38 [clause 129, inserted section 262F(3)]—After paragraph (c) insert:

and

(d) a member nominated by a registered industrial association that represents the interests of employees of councils specified by the Minister by notice in the Gazette.

This amendment was made possible due to the successful passage of amendment No. 2 in my name, which inserted the definition of registered industrial association under the interpretation section of the bill. This amendment puts into the substantive clause that a member nominated by a registered industrial association be included on the behavioural standards panel.

While the reasoning for this amendment was discussed when introducing amendment No. 2 in my name, I note that many weeks have since passed and we have a new member in our chamber, so I will take a few moments to remind the chamber of the significant nature of this amendment. Under the current requirements laid out in the government's proposed behavioural standards panel, the panel will consist of three members appointed by the LGA and the minister.

I agree with many of the comments made by the Minister for Local Government through media reports that the behavioural panel will give the councils tools they need to investigate misbehaviour more quickly and efficiently. But there is an important voice missing from this panel: the voice of the people who are often impacted the most, that is, council employees. We know this sense of power imbalance does not stop at local government. This is a serious matter that is impacting employees across the political spectrum.

We have heard stories from this house, federal parliament and local government that employees feel the power held by elected political representatives can exacerbate feelings of intimidation. One of the defining features of recent events in federal and state parliaments has been the lack of support that victims feel when they are faced with the poor behaviour of their boss or their employer. They feel that they do not have a voice and that there is not anyone in the room who will lend support and acknowledge their experience, their trauma and their distress.

Since introducing amendment No. 2 in my name, an independent review into the behaviour of the Tea Tree Gully mayor has been discussed extensively through media reports. While the incident report compiled by Norman Waterhouse outlines a number of disturbing instances of misconduct between the Tea Tree Gully mayor and a fellow councillor, there are also reports of misconduct towards a female council employee. The report alleges that the mayor deliberately hit the employee on her bottom with a rolled up paper, document or the like. It also alleges that the mayor blamed management for the way the employee dresses and referred to her as 'dressing like a $2 tramp'.

I am sure all in this chamber would agree that these comments and this behaviour is completely unacceptable. We have seen employees of parliament, across all three levels of government, suffer greatly when behavioural standards are not maintained. Here in this parliament a recent report has highlighted that staff have been harassed, intimidated or treated poorly whilst trying to carry out their duties in their very own workplace. The Hon. Frank Pangallo revealed in this place only last week, through an FOI document, that $40 million of taxpayers' money was used to pay off 841 victims of harassment over the past five years.

By including an employee representative on the behavioural standards panel, we ensure that victims will have a voice and that employees will have a voice. This will ensure that complaints made by victims will not merely be assessed by panellists appointed by employers or employer advocacy groups but that these complaints will be assessed by an employee advocate. Perhaps the most important question to ask is: why not have an employee representative on the panel?

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak in support of these Labor amendments. We certainly support the statements made by the honourable member. We agree with the Labor Party that it is important for a registered industrial officer to have a voice at the table and so we will be supporting this and the associated amendments.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes these amendments. This amendment seeks to expand the membership of the proposed behavioural standards panel to four members, to include a member nominated by a registered industrial association. I am advised that this panel is to be established to deal with complaints of serious and repeated council member behaviour. It will not deal with employee behavioural matters.

While an initial complainant may be a council employee, a complaint can only be referred to the panel by a council resolution, the mayor, at least three members of council or a responsible person under the new section 75G, most likely to be a council chief executive officer. A council employee, who may be an initial complainant or relevant witness, can, of course, seek the support of a registered industrial association through any process of matters before the panel.

It should be noted that the role of the panel members is not to represent council members or any other person. I am advised that this panel is meant to be an independent body, whose job it will be to independently and impartially assess complaints of serious or repeated misbehaviour by a council member. That is why the bill is proposing that members cannot be sitting members or current council employees.

I am also advised that they cannot be a council member or employee of any other council. It is not just of the particular council. If the complaint is in relation to a particular council, clearly the people sitting on this panel who are meant to be independent cannot be sitting council members or employees but they also cannot be sitting council members of another council or employees of another council.

The intention is that these are serious complaints being made against a serving elected council member and that the three persons who are going to be nominated to make an independent judgement about his or her behaviour, as to whether it is acceptable or not, are actually three independent people. They are not intended to be there to represent particular views or the like, they are there to, in essence, sit as an independent panel making a judgement about either the serious behaviour or misbehaviour of a particular council member.

Whilst I understand from the Labor Party and others this notion that union representatives have to be on everything, this is actually a serious issue about misbehaviour of a member possibly against other members of council, possibly against staff members, but it may well just be the internecine warfare that we have become familiar with in one particular prominent council that the new member may well be familiar with, where it may well be that it is just warfare between a council member and another council member.

The purpose of the bill is to seek a resolution of three independent persons to make a judgement about the accuracy of the complaints that might be made about serious misbehaviour by a particular council member. For those reasons, the government does not support the amendment and, whilst we understand the background to wanting to put a union rep on everything, we believe in this particular case it really misses the point in terms of what this is meant to be about and that is an independent judgement about the behaviour of a council member, as I said, possibly against their behaviour, attitude or actions towards potentially even another council member of that same council.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I am rising to say that SA-Best will be supporting this amendment and certainly the words that have been expressed by both the Hon. Emily Bourke and the Hon. Robert Simms. There is absolutely no reason why staff on a council should not have some kind of representation when dealing with disciplinary matters. As the Hon. Emily Bourke has already pointed out, there have been many instances in recent times that show there needs to be some sort of representation on behalf of staff.

I note that the behavioural standards panel will be constituted by one member nominated by the minister, one by the LGA and one jointly. Even that, going by the history of this government with other panels that it has put in place in some bills last year, has led to a number of questions being raised about the appointments. I often have suspicions when the minister gets to have a big say in the appointment of particular panels and then representative bodies like unions are left out of it, so we are supporting the amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: For the record, I will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I just wanted to clarify a couple of comments made by the Hon. Rob Lucas. He highlights that maybe we are missing the point; I fear maybe he is missing the point. This is a serious issue, as the Treasurer has highlighted. He has also highlighted that, yes, complaints can be made by a councillor, but quite often the reason the councillor may need to appear before the panel is because of their behaviour towards an employee.

The Treasurer refers to section 75(1) of the Local Government Act, which talks about the health and safety duties of members of council. It specifically mentions that a member's behaviour should not adversely affect the health and safety of other members of the council or employees of the council. The government's amendment to this section means that, in the cases where a council's employees' health and safety is adversely affected by a member's behaviour, a complaint relating to that matter should be referred to the behavioural standards panel.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I move:

Amendment No 35 [Bourke–1]—

Page 69, line 26 [clause 129, inserted section 262G(3)]—Delete 'unless the LGA consents to the making of the recommendation.' and substitute:

unless—

(a) in all cases—the LGA consents to the making of the recommendation; and

(b) in the case of a member appointed following nomination under section 262F(3)(d)—the registered industrial association that made the nomination consents to the making of the recommendation.

This amendment is consequential on the previous amendment and simply requires the minister to consult with a relevant registered industrial association when removing an employee representative from the behavioural panel.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 130 to 144 passed.

Clause 145.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I will not be moving amendment No. 36 [Bourke-1] as it is consequential to amendment No. 25 regarding a travel register of interests.

Clause passed.

Clauses 146 to 149 passed.

Clause 150.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I move:

Amendment No 37 [Bourke–1]—

Page 85, line 13 [clause 150(1)]—Delete '12 members' and substitute:

the number of members that a council may be comprised of under section 11A(1) of the principal Act

This amendment is consequential to amendment No. 7 in my name and is required because of the chamber's will to not cap elected council members' representation at 12. This is a small technical amendment and is required so that we can bring the transitional provisions in line with section 11A. This will be achieved by removing the reference to '12 members' in the transitional provisions and substituting it with 'the number of members that a council may be comprised of under section 11A(1) of the principal Act'.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I move:

Amendment No 38 [Bourke–1]—

Page 85, line 16 [clause 150(1)]—After 'section 11A' insert:

(unless the council is granted an exemption certificate under section 12(11b) of the principal Act (as amended by section 10 of this Act))

I move this amendment for reasons similar to those for the previous amendment. This amendment is consequential to amendment No. 8 in my name, which relates to council representation exemption certificates under section 12(11b), which determines if a community would benefit from comprising of more than 13 members. This amendment is also required to bring the transitional provisions in line with the amendments made throughout the act.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 151.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Pangallo–1]—

Page 86, after line 8—Insert:

(a1) Section 4(1), definition of designated person—after 'who is' insert:

an Australian citizen and

This amendment changes the definition of a designated person and inserts that the person who is able to vote in a local government election needs to be an Australian citizen. As I have already pointed out in my second reading speech, I think South Australia and one other jurisdiction are the only ones that permit ratepayers who are not Australian citizens to vote in local government elections. It is at odds with what happens in federal and state elections, where it is insisted upon. I find it odd that, in this jurisdiction, there seems to be some kind of opposition to having only Australian citizens being able to vote.

This amendment was inspired by a letter I received a couple of years ago from a long-serving regional councillor by the name of Ken Grundy from Naracoorte. He drew this to my attention. I found it quite incredible to think that, while we do insist upon it in the first and second tier of government, the third tier of government—local government is now becoming quite important and is generating a lot of interest, even within the community. The community is interested in what happens in its own backyard now, and they would like for people who are either representing them or who are voting for their membership on a council to be Australian citizens.

The other area I think I outlined, which I thought was an issue, particularly in the City of Adelaide, is that we know that in the pre-COVID era something like 13,000 international students resided in the city. These students have absolutely no skin in the game as far as property ownership or what goes on in the City of Adelaide: they do not pay rates, they do not contribute in that regard to the economic welfare of the city, yet if they have been in residence for 30 days or more they can apply to the CEO and be eligible to vote.

The other aspect of this is that you cannot eliminate the possibility that an enterprising candidate in a city election could muster enough votes very quickly to be elected to the council. In South Australia you can be eligible to be on the local council's roll if you are a resident or a non-Australian citizen who has lived at your residential address for one month or more. So technically, as I have pointed out, you can come here on an extended backpacker's holiday and still be able to determine who would be the mayor or a councillor for that particular ward.

As I have pointed out, it could lead to stacking, much like what happens in political parties and unions. This is a glaring anomaly and, even though I realise I may not have the support for this, I believe it is an important measure, particularly with regard to the City of Adelaide, to avoid the type of vote rorting we could possibly see. Australian citizenship should be mandatory for people to have the right to vote.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes the amendment. Vive la différence! We celebrate the different franchises of local government to state and federal government. It is different. We do not seek to reflect everything that occurs at the commonwealth and state level in terms of either the franchise or the operation. That is not a sin in and of itself, it is just celebrating the difference in terms of local government as opposed to state and federal government.

I understand the position of the correspondent who has prompted the Hon. Mr Pangallo to embark on this series of amendments. I have had correspondence from the same correspondent over the years as well, but again our government's view, and certainly my view as well, is that we do not think we have to directly replicate all of the eligibility requirements in relation to state and commonwealth government at the local government level. There are significant differences—this is one of them—there are others in relation to the property franchise, and there are other differences as well in relation to how people are elected at the local government level.

I guess the overarching view has been over many decades. I am told this provision has been there for decades—for a very long time. Essentially, people who make or potentially make a contribution to their community or who are involved in their community or neighbourhood ought to be able to have a say in who represents them at the local level on their local council.

I accept the view that as councils, in particular metropolitan councils, have become bigger and bigger there has been more of an argument to support the view the Hon. Mr Pangallo and his constituents have put. It was a more powerful argument, potentially, about how the smaller and more localised councils are and continue to be, generally, in regional areas but also in a number of our metropolitan council areas in the Hills as well. For all those reasons, the government will not be supporting this amendment and related amendments from the Hon. Mr Pangallo.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: For similar reasons, we will be opposing the honourable member's amendments. Again, whilst we understand the intent of the member's amendment to the act, we feel that local government is the level of government in which everyone should be able to participate and have their say about how their streets and their community look. We feel that local government is just that; it is local. The way the bill is currently structured it enables everyone to have a say about what their community looks like.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Similarly, the Greens will not be supporting this amendment. Whilst I understand the honourable member's intentions, like the Hon. Emily Bourke and the Hon. Rob Lucas we are of the view that we need to encourage more diversity in voting in council elections.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: As it will not receive any support, I will not move amendment No. 2 [Pangallo-1], which would be consequential.

Clause passed.

Clauses 152 to 164 passed.

Clause 165.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Treasurer–2]—

Page 93, lines 28 to 36 [clause 165(2)]—Delete subclause (2) and substitute:

(2) Section 28(2a)—delete subsection (2a) and substitute:

(2a) If, on application, SACAT is satisfied that published electoral material contains a statement purporting to be a statement of fact that is inaccurate and misleading to a material extent, SACAT may order the publisher to do 1 or more of the following:

(a) withdraw the material from further publication;

(b) publish a retraction in specified terms and a specified manner and form.

(2b) For the purposes of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013—

(a) an application to SACAT under subsection (2a)—

(i) will be taken to come within SACAT's original jurisdiction; and

(ii) must be referred to a Presidential member or senior member of SACAT, or a magistrate designated as a member of SACAT; and

(b) an order of SACAT under subsection (2a) may not be the subject of an application for internal review under section 70 of that Act, but, despite section 71(2a) of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, an appeal against the order may be instituted under section 71 of that Act.

This amendment will provide for the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) to have the ability to order a person to withdraw election material or to publish a retraction if SACAT is of the view that the material is inaccurate and misleading to a material extent. The amendment will remove this task from the Electoral Commission of South Australia, which I understand strongly supports this change. The amendment also enables an appropriate review mechanism through SACAT, rather than referral to the Supreme Court by the Electoral Commission of South Australia as the bill currently proposes.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I rise to indicate that the opposition will be opposing this amendment. Labor opposes this amendment that seeks to have SACAT replace the Electoral Commissioner as the umpire for when considering whether misleading material has been published. The Electoral Commissioner and staff have combined decades and decades of experience and corporate knowledge in dealing with electoral matters. They are best placed to make decisions of this sort. They make decisions in a timely and impartial fashion, which is essential in the middle of a fast-moving and dynamic election campaign.

Taking these issues to SACAT has the potential to increase delays and, furthermore, we are concerned about the resources and workload that would be put on SACAT at short notice. It is inconsistent with current practices that occur at a state level, where decisions about whether material is misleading are made by the Electoral Commissioner. I strongly urge all members to oppose this unnecessary amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: For the record, I will be opposing this amendment.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The Greens join the Labor Party and the Hon. Mr Darley in opposing this amendment as well.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We will be opposing it as well.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 166 to 169 passed.

Clause 170.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 94, after line 17—Insert:

(1) Section 37(1)—delete 'Voting' and substitute:

Subject to section 41A, voting

I am advised that this amendment is consequential to a proposed insertion of a new section 41A in the Local Government (Elections) Act 1999 and is detailed in amendment No. 2 filed under my name, but they are related and we can have the substantive debate on this particular amendment.

I am advised that this amendment was requested by the Electoral Commission of South Australia, which was responding to requests to help vision-impaired people participate in elections. The proposed new section will allow for electronically assisted or telephone voting for a prescribed elector. This will be a vision-impaired elector or another kind of elector as prescribed by the regulations. I also note that the Local Government Association will be consulted on any regulations that are needed to make this new section operate.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I will be supporting this amendment put forward by the government. The amendment enables the provision of assisted voting methods in local council. Making it easier for citizens to vote is an essential element of our democracy, and these amendments do just that. These assisted voting methods are similar to assisted voting methods adopted in the Electoral Act in the former Labor government's successful electoral reforms in 2017, and are supported.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We will be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: We will also be supporting this amendment, recognising that it makes our elections more inclusive and therefore more democratic.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting this amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 171 and 172 passed.

New clause 172A.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 95, after line 11—Insert:

172A—Insertion of section 41A

After section 41 insert:

41A—Assisted voting

(1) The regulations may make provision in relation to voting in an election or poll by prescribed electors by means of an assisted voting method.

(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), regulations made for the purposes of this section may—

(a) determine, or provide for the determination of, 1 or more assisted voting methods and, in relation to each such method, determine, or provide for the determination of, the following:

(i) matters related to voting using the assisted voting method, including the provision of assistance to electors using the method, requirements to be followed after an elector has used the method and matters of privacy and secrecy;

(ii) the number of places where the assisted voting method is to be available, the location of those places (if relevant) and the days and times at which the method is to be available;

(iii) which electors may use the assisted voting method; and

(b) require the making of a record of each person who has voted using an assisted voting method; and

(c) specify the information that is to be included in a record; and

(d) provide for the production of a record of the vote each person has cast, which must not contain any means of identifying the person who cast the vote; and

(e) provide for the appointment by the returning officer of officers in relation to the conduct of an assisted voting method; and

(f) provide for the application of this Act, or provisions of this Act, in relation to votes cast using an assisted voting method, including the modification of the application of this Act or a provision of this Act in relation to such votes; and

(g) make provision for any other matters related to assisted voting.

(3) To avoid doubt, nothing in this section (or in regulations made for the purposes of this section) authorises any elector to vote in more than 1 capacity at an election or poll.

(4) An assisted voting method must be such that an elector using the method in relation to an election or poll—

(a) receives the same information (in the same order), and has the same voting options, as would appear in the ballot paper for the election or poll that the elector would be given if the elector were voting by postal vote under this Part; and

(b) is able to indicate a vote in a way that, if the elector were marking a ballot paper, would not be an informal ballot paper.

(5) Subject to this section, if an elector votes using an assisted voting method (an assisted vote)—

(a) this Act applies (subject to any modifications prescribed under subsection (2)(f)) in relation to an assisted vote as if it were a vote delivered to an electoral officer for the relevant council in a sealed envelope; and

(b) the record of the assisted vote produced in accordance with the regulations is to be taken to be a ballot paper for the purposes of this Act; and

(c) the requirements of this Act in relation to the elector's right to receive a ballot paper are to be taken to have been satisfied.

(6) The returning officer may, by notice in the Gazette, determine that an assisted voting method is not to be used either generally or at 1 or more specified places.

(7) A notice under subsection (6) must specify the election or poll in respect of which the determination applies.

(8) In this section—

prescribed elector means a sight-impaired elector or an elector of a class prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this definition;

sight-impaired elector means an elector whose sight is impaired such that the elector is unable to vote without assistance.

The amendment standing in my name is consequential on the successful passage of that last amendment.

New clause inserted.

Clause 173 passed.

New clause 173A.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Pangallo–1]—

Page 95, after line 16—Insert:

173A—Insertion of section 44A

After section 44 insert:

44A—Compulsory voting

(1) Subject to subsection (2), it is a duty of every elector to record their vote at each election in the area or ward for which the elector is enrolled.

(2) An elector who leaves the ballot paper unmarked but who otherwise observes the formalities of voting is not in breach of the duty imposed by subsection (1).

(3) Within the prescribed period after the close of each election, the returning officer must send by post to each elector who appears not to have voted at the election a notice, in the prescribed form—

(a) notifying the elector that they appear to have failed to vote at the election and that it is an offence to fail to vote at an election without a valid and sufficient reason; and

(b) calling on them to show cause why proceedings for failing to vote at the election without a valid and sufficient reason should not be instituted against them,

but the returning officer, if satisfied that the elector is dead or had a valid and sufficient reason for not voting, need not send such a notice.

(4) Before sending any such notice, the returning officer must insert in the notice a date, not being less than 21 days after the date of posting of the notice, on which the form attached to the notice, duly filled up and signed by the elector, is to be received by the returning officer.

(5) Every elector to whom a notice under this section has been sent must complete the form in the indicated place by stating the reasons (if any) why proceedings for failing to vote at the election should not be instituted against them, and then sign the form and return it to the returning officer not later than the date inserted in the notice.

(6) If an elector is absent or unable, by reason of physical incapacity, to complete, sign and return the form, within the time allowed under subsection (4), any other elector who has personal knowledge of the facts may complete, sign and return the form, duly witnessed, within that time, and, in that case, the elector will be taken to have complied with subsection (5).

(7) An elector must not—

(a) fail to vote at an election without a valid and sufficient reason for the failure; or

(b) on receipt of a notice under subsection (3), fail to complete, sign and return the form (duly witnessed) that is attached to the notice within the time allowed under subsection (4).

Maximum penalty: $50.

Expiation fee: $10.

(8) An elector has a valid and sufficient reason for failing to vote at an election if—

(a) the elector was ineligible to vote at the election; or

(b) the elector was absent from the address to which their voting papers were posted for the period commencing on the date on which the voting papers would, in the ordinary course of post, have reached the address to which they were posted and concluding on polling day; or

(c) the elector had a conscientious objection, based on religious grounds, to voting at the election; or

(d) there is some other proper reason for the elector's failure to vote.

(9) A prosecution for an offence against this section—

(a) cannot be commenced except by the returning officer or an officer authorised in writing by the returning officer; and

(b) in the case of a prosecution for failing to vote at an election or failing to return a notice to the returning officer in accordance with subsection (4)—may be commenced at any time within 12 months of polling day.

(10) In proceedings for an offence against this section—

(a) a certificate apparently signed by the returning officer certifying that an officer named in the certificate was authorised to commence the prosecution will, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be accepted as proof of that authority; and

(b) a certificate apparently signed by an electoral officer certifying that voting papers were posted to an elector at the address appearing on the electoral roll, on a date specified in the certificate, will be accepted, in the absence of proof to the contrary, as proof—

(i) that the voting papers were duly sent to the elector on that date; and

(ii) that the voting papers complied with the requirements of this Act; and

(c) a certificate apparently signed by an electoral officer certifying that the defendant failed to vote at a particular election will be accepted as proof of that failure to vote in the absence of proof to the contrary; and

(d) a certificate apparently signed by an electoral officer certifying that a notice under subsection (3) was posted to an elector, at the address appearing on the electoral roll or at a postal address provided by the elector, on a date specified in the certificate, will be accepted, in the absence of proof to the contrary, as proof—

(i) that the notice was duly sent to the elector on that date; and

(ii) that the notice complied with the requirements of this Act; and

(iii) that it was received by the elector on the date on which it would, in the ordinary course of post, have reached the address to which it was posted; and

(e) a certificate apparently signed by an electoral officer certifying that the defendant failed to return a form under this section to the returning officer within the time allowed under subsection (4) will be accepted, in the absence of proof to the contrary, as proof of the failure to return the form within that time.

This is in regard to compulsory voting in local government elections. I realise in reading the mood of the Legislative Council that this amendment will not be supported by either the government, the opposition or the Greens; however, I will still make an impassioned plea that it is time that we started to recognise the importance of local government, the importance it plays in the affairs of our community, representation in local government and the responsibilities that we now place on members of councils, from the mayors down through the elected representatives. In fact, we found councillors so responsible that they are now also receiving a stipend for the work they do.

I acknowledge the work councillors do in local government today. It is certainly a far cry from the earlier days, and certainly the days when I used to cover council elections as a young reporter, when you found most of the elected representatives—in fact, all of them—were basically volunteers from within the community, people who were putting their hand up to do a service for their community. Generally, not much attention had been paid to the affairs that went on in local government in those days.

Thankfully, today the community is quite aware and takes quite an interest in what happens at a local government level. You only have to see the attendance rates these days, and certainly at larger council meetings, where the community do want to have a say in the affairs of what goes on and do want to be heard.

I think we also need to start to recognise the fact that compulsory voting needs to come into local government if people want to make their elected representatives and their potential candidates accountable. It happens in state and federal government, where we have compulsory elections, but not in local government.

I just find it incredible when we see criticism, particularly at a state government level, of the carryings on that go on in local government by either the elected members or whomever that, 'How can somebody make such an outrageous decision on something and only receive a handful of votes to get in there?' It is easy to make that distinction and that criticism but we need to do something about it.

Quite frankly, at the 2018 election, 400,000 people out of an eligible 1.2 million cast their votes. That is not good enough. That is 32 per cent. A significant number did not bother to turn out and have a say in what happens in their own backyard. An advantage of compulsory voting is that people will suddenly start to get interested in what happens at a local government level. They will also start to be interested in their candidates or their incumbent members. They will start to do some research and take a more active interest and that is what we want.

We want greater representation of voters at the local government level. The critics of compulsory voting, and I think the LGA may be one of them, although I understand that they seem to be supportive of having a trial, point to the increased costs and oversight by the Electoral Commission. Quite frankly, that is the price we pay for democracy, and that is what we need to do.

Interestingly, I received a letter from the Lord Mayor, the Hon. Sandy Verschoor, recently. She wrote to me about City of Adelaide elections. She is of the view that perhaps we look at legislation to amend the City of Adelaide Act to allow at least a trial of compulsory voting to see how it would work. She writes:

The Local Government Association has proposed a review of compulsory and online voting as the sector has advocated for these reforms for some time. At a LGA Briefing on the reforms late last year, a number of Mayors and independent Members of the Legislative Council (Upper House),—

myself included—

indicated support for a trial by one or more councils of compulsory and electronic voting to help address costs, low voter engagement, and turnout across the sector. If this does not get addressed as part of Section 44 of the Local Government Review Bill, the City of Adelaide would be an obvious first choice to trial compulsory voting.

She goes on to say:

The City of Sydney Act 1988 and the City of Melbourne Act 2001 as well as the Local Government Electoral Act 2011 (QLD) provide that voting is compulsory for anyone listed on the roll. In Sydney and Melbourne fines also apply for failure to vote as an added incentive. Voting is also compulsory for the ACT and NT Legislative Assemblies (which perform the function of a city council).

Lord Mayor Verschoor then goes on to make a case for the proposal for electronic voting. I will not go into that much at this point because it is something we need to address further down the track. However, she makes a case that we need to now have a discussion on utilising the technology that exists today for electronic voting to encourage greater participation in local government elections and certainly in the City of Adelaide, which is, of course, our biggest council.

So you have the office of the Lord Mayor strongly supporting compulsory voting. We already have it in other states. Often on other pieces of legislation I hear the argument in this chamber, 'Look, it's already happened in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland. Why are we the only state out?' Here is a prime example of why we should not be the only state out and should also have compulsory voting. I think it is important. I think the people of South Australia would probably support it, and perhaps it is something the Treasurer could consider as a referendum at the next state election.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Given the honourable member's prolific use of the argument that, 'The other states are doing it; why shouldn't we?' he might like to apply that to shop trading hours reform as well, but we will not introduce that element, as he sought to do, into this particular debate. The consistency of the argument can be used both for and against an individual member as an individual member so chooses.

For similar reasons to the earlier amendment the Hon. Mr Pangallo moved, unsuccessfully, the government opposes this—again, for the same reasons. We celebrate the difference between state and commonwealth governments and local government, and we are not supportive of imposing compulsory voting. To be frank in relation to the Hon. Frank Pangallo's amendments, the compulsory voting probably makes more sense if his other amendments had got up; there would be a more consistent package of amendments. It seems to make less sense given that one set of amendments have already been unsuccessful. Nevertheless, for similar reasons the government will be opposing the compulsory voting amendments.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: The opposition will also be opposing this amendment, but we do appreciate the true intent of the member's intention for why this amendment is required. However, we feel that more work needs to be done in this space for such a large reform, particularly around the cost of this change and the impact on the election time frames. Again, I think it is fantastic that the honourable member has brought this discussion to the chamber and it is one that we should continue.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The Greens also welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue. Might I say that I certainly share the Hon. Frank Pangallo's passion for local government. I have had some experience there myself and I recognise the really important role that it plays. However, like the Labor Party, we do have some concerns around the resourcing implications of this, some of the elements that have not yet been ventilated within the community.

The suggestion that the honourable member has advanced around investigating a trial down the track is something that we may well be open to considering in the future, and perhaps the City of Adelaide Act would be a more appropriate place to advance that, but in terms of compulsory voting across the board, we are not in a position to support that.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: For the reasons already expressed by other members, I will be opposing this amendment.

New clause negatived.

Clauses 174 to 180 passed.

New clauses 180A and 180B.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Simms–1]—

Page 98, after line 25—After clause 180 insert:

180A—Amendment of heading to Part 14

Heading to Part 14—after 'donations' insert 'and disclosure'

180B—Insertion of Part 14 Division A1

Part 14—before Division 1 insert:

Division A1—Disclosure of political party memberships

79A—Disclosure of political party memberships

(1) A candidate for election to an office of a council must, at the prescribed time, notify the returning officer, in the manner determined by the returning officer, of—

(a) whether or not the candidate is a member of a registered political party (within the meaning of the Electoral Act 1985); and

(b) if the candidate is a member of a registered political party—

(i) the name of the party; and

(ii) when the candidate became a member of the party.

Maximum penalty: $10,000.

(2) The returning officer must make a copy of each notification given under this section in relation to an election available on a website maintained by the returning officer within 7 days after the day on which the notification was required to be given.

(3) In this section—prescribed time means—

(a) in the case of a periodic election—within 21 days after the close of nominations for the election; or

(b) in any other case—within 7 days after the close of nominations for the election.

This amendment seeks to improve transparency in local government elections, but from the outset I do want to thank honourable members for their indulgence. I recognise that there has been significant discussion about this bill before I came to this chamber, and so I will make my remarks brief. It is for that reason also that the Greens' amendments are modest in nature.

What we are seeking to do here is improve transparency, and this amendment No. 1 [Simms-1] relates to requiring people to disclose their political party memberships. What we are requesting is that this happen within 21 days after the close of nominations, and that it be published within seven days after the notification, so the returning officer would put this information on the website.

Why is this important? Presently, candidates who are standing in local government elections are required to disclose their political party memberships along with their memberships of a range of other organisations after the community has cast their votes. It has been a long-held principle of the Greens that members of the community should get all the information they require to enable them to make an informed choice. It seems really wrong to us that we have a scenario where members of the community are voting without that vital information. Somebody could be a member of a political party and that information has not been disclosed to the elector at the time they have cast their vote.

Elections for local council should not be a lucky dip where the community just kind of puts their hand in the hat and pulls out whatever they land with. Members of the community have a right to that information so that they can make an informed decision. We have seen situations in local councils where you have members of particular political parties who have not disclosed and then may form some sort of a faction or informal grouping, and there are some that have been very well advertised involving, in particular, the conservative side of politics, and there have been a number of scenarios where that membership has not been made clear to members of the community at the time that they cast their votes. So we are seeking to clear that up, and there are a few amendments that relate to that.

It is my understanding that the government is intending to pursue this element through regulation, but I have received no information about how that is going to be done. Today, I would welcome some clarification from the government about that on the public record.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to provide that clarification on behalf of the government. This amendment is not supported; however, the government intends to deliver the intent of this amendment to require candidates in local government elections to disclose whether they are a member of a political party or have been in the past 12 months through regulations.

It is intended that regulations will require candidates to include this information in the profile that all candidates must produce under section 19(2) of the Local Government (Elections) Act 1999. This ensures that not only is this information disclosed but that it is also released online by the Electoral Commission of South Australia, as the bill proposes.

I note that the proposal in these amendments is that the returning officer in the Electoral Commission of South Australia will publish the information online within seven days of receiving it. However, including the information in the candidate profile would ensure that all information about a candidate that voters may wish to refer to is available in a single place rather than having two separate disclosure and publication processes in place.

This is also a much simpler process for the Electoral Commission, rather than establishing two requirements for publication. Noting that the proposal for each disclosure that could be provided by hundreds of candidates over a period of time would need to be published individually, I am happy to make a clear commitment on behalf of the government that the government intends to make regulations under section 19(2)(b) of the Local Government (Elections) Act 1999 to require candidate profiles to include information on whether the candidate is a member of a registered political party or has been within the preceding 12 months, as this amendment proposes.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I rise to oppose this amendment and I understand that it will be consequential to amendments Nos 4 and 5 that the mover is putting forward. I do so also acknowledging that the government is moving regulations towards this area and caution them strongly to consider the wording because, while I cannot speak on behalf of every registered South Australian political party, I will quickly put on my president of the South Australian party hat.

These amendments, as they stand, do not take into consideration that a political party, like the Labor Party, do not undertake a formal preselection process for local government candidates. Party members, individuals, who are members of a community standing as a candidate for local government have not been endorsed by the Labor Party. They are purely individual members of that community. The disclosure of this information in a formal capacity from the Electoral Commissioner could result in voters believing otherwise.

In addition to this concern with this particular amendment, while this has been covered by the Treasurer in his regulation comments, it does not provide a time frame that would capture if a prospective candidate resigned from a political party in the past 12 months or even on the day of nominating to run as a candidate. The omission of such a time frame may result in the candidate simply sidestepping this disclosure requirement and therefore not achieving the mover's desired outcome.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): I will go to the Hon. Mr Simms, if I may, and ask if he intends to proceed with the amendment. It is entirely a matter for you, of course.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Yes, I do.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I rise to say that we will support the amendment by the Hon. Robert Simms. He, and a couple of other members in this chamber, the Hon. Tung Ngo and the Hon. Justin Hanson, who have been members of local government councils, would know precisely what goes on in local government when it comes to affiliations with political parties.

The intent of his amendment is openness and transparency so that the voters in a local government election know who their candidates are and what affiliations they may have. It may not just be political; they could probably be required to reveal affiliations to organisations like Greenpeace or other wildlife or environmental groups. That gives voters an opportunity to get a better picture of who their candidate is.

Political affiliations are just as strong, and we know that it happens throughout the local government sector. We know that there are very strong representations from all political spheres, ours included. We have had members on councils ourselves, and we have insisted that their affiliations be disclosed so that the electors and people in their local government ward area know exactly where they stand and where they may stand politically as well. I think this is the intent of the honourable member's amendment.

I welcome what the Treasurer has just told us, that it will be included in regulations and that these disclosures will be made. I am not so sure of the time frame, Treasurer. I did not get when these disclosures will have to be made—before a local government election or when? He could probably answer that afterwards. I am saying that it is important that the people know what their representatives stand for and whatever ideologies they may also have when it comes to their positions. It is very important that openness and transparency apply not just in areas like federal and state government but also in local government.

The Hon. Emily Bourke seems to think that, if we pass this amendment, it may then be incumbent on political parties to be preselecting candidates for local government elections. That may be, but at least the community, the voters, will know that, and that is the important thing. Following a council election, there is always some conjecture, some furore that blows up, over a particular member's affiliations that were not known during the election campaign and they only come out afterwards.

I think it is important that voters, before they go into selecting a candidate, before they start filling out the ballot papers, know exactly what the person who is standing actually stands for and they know precisely their views on particular issues. Again, it is all about openness and transparency, which is why I welcome the amendment of the Hon. Robert Simms and the Greens and also welcome what the government is doing. There is no reason we cannot enshrine that in a piece of legislation.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will be opposing this amendment. I thank the Leader of the Government for outlining the government's intentions in respect of this matter.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I was not going to rise, but I do rise to support the Hon. Robert Simms and associate myself with his comments. Also, during the Hon. Frank Pangallo's contribution I wanted to make an observation. It is not just important that electors know who a candidate is affiliated with. The case that the Hon. Frank Pangallo gave was perhaps that they are a member of Greenpeace.

The current Mayor of Hornsby, Philip Ruddock, when he was Minister for Immigration, used to give the impression that he was a member of Amnesty International. I worked for Amnesty International at that time. We could not get him to take off our pin. He purported and presented as a member of Amnesty International when he was not. In fact, the reverse is just as important: sometimes people present to be what they are not in the election. This transparency will add to that as well.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: When you have the numbers I do not tend to prolong the debate, but there have been a couple of questions raised. The Hon. Mr Pangallo asked a question about the timing of the regulations. I am advised that they will be done well and truly before the next round of elections, which are scheduled for November 2022, so you can rest assured on that. In terms of when they are circulated, the information that will be provided gets provided with the candidate profile, and I understand the candidate profile has to be submitted with the nomination by the individual prospective council members, so that would be revealed.

I was not sure that I understood entirely the contribution of the Hon. Ms Bourke on behalf of the Labor Party, but if it did suggest that a prospective candidate could resign from the Labor Party a day prior to nominating, the proposed regulation that we have given a commitment to says 'a membership at the time but also for any preceding 12-month period'. So if they were going to do that, they would have to resign 12 months prior to when they intended to nominate for council.

I guess the only other commentary I would make in relation to the Labor Party's position on this—that they are not formally endorsed by the Labor Party—is that I think a former very prominent member of the House of Assembly, who will be quite familiar to the Hon. Tung Ngo, used to conduct his own personal preselection processes for one particular council prominent in the north-western suburbs.

So whilst I agree with the Hon. Ms Bourke that the Labor Party might not have endorsed various candidates, a former very prominent member of the Australian Labor Party in the House of Assembly conducted his own personal preselection processes. If the Hon. Ms Bourke needs further information about that, she might like to speak to the Hon. Mr Ngo about the processes that were conducted by that particular member in relation to formal endorsement or otherwise for nomination for a particular council.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I recognise that this amendment is not going to be successful today. I do recognise the undertaking that the Hon. Mr Lucas has given on behalf of the government that they will be dealing with this matter through regulation. The Greens certainly welcome that. My predecessor, the Hon. Mark Parnell, I understand had been a long-term advocate for this position and it has long been a focus of the Greens to ensure we have this level of transparency in our local government elections so that electors can make informed decisions, so I welcome the commitment that the government has given today.

New clauses negatived.

New clause 180A.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Pangallo–1]—

Page 98, after line 25—Insert:

180A—Insertion of Part 14 Division A1

Part 14—before Division 1 insert:

Division A1—Prohibition of donations from certain donors

79A—Preliminary

In this Division—

associated entity has the same meaning as in Part 13A of the Electoral Act 1985;

party means a body or organisation, incorporated or unincorporated, having as 1 of its objects or activities the promotion of the election to Parliament or a council of a candidate or candidates endorsed by it or by a body or organisation of which it forms a part.

79B—Meaning of political donation

(1) For the purposes of this Division, a political donation is—

(a) a gift made to or for the benefit of a candidate for election to an office of a council, the whole or part of which was used or is intended to be used by the candidate—

(i) solely or substantially for a purpose related to an election; or

(ii) to enable the candidate to make, directly or indirectly, a political donation; or

(iii) to reimburse the candidate for making, directly or indirectly, a political donation; or

(b) a gift made to or for the benefit of an entity or other person (not being a candidate for election to an office of a council), the whole or part of which was used or is intended to be used by the entity or person—

(i) to enable the entity or person to make, directly or indirectly, a political donation; or

(ii) to reimburse the entity or person for making, directly or indirectly, a political donation.

(2) An amount paid by a person as a contribution, entry fee or other payment to entitle that or any other person to participate in or otherwise obtain any benefit from a fundraising venture or function (being an amount that forms part of the gross proceeds of the venture or function) is taken to be a gift for the purposes of this section.

(3) An annual or other subscription paid to a party by—

(a) a member of the party; or

(b) a person or entity (including an associated entity or industrial organisation) for affiliation with the party,

is taken to be a gift to the party for the purposes of this section.

(4) Uncharged interest on a loan to an entity or other person is taken to be a gift to the entity or person for the purposes of this section.

(5) Uncharged interest is the additional amount that would have been payable by the entity or person if—

(a) the loan had been made on terms requiring the payment of interest at the generally prevailing interest rate for a loan of that kind; and

(b) any interest payable had not been waived; and

(c) any interest payments were not capitalised.

79C—Meaning of prohibited donor

(1) For the purposes of this Division, a prohibited donor is—

(a) a property developer; or

(b) a building entity; or

(c) an industry representative organisation if the majority of its members are prohibited donors; or

(d) any other person or organisation that holds or has, within the preceding 7 years, held a contract for services of an annual value of more than the prescribed amount with the relevant council.

(2) In this section—

prescribed amount means $100,000;

relevant council means the council for which a candidate to whom a political donation is made, or is proposed to be made, is standing for election.

79D—Political donations by prohibited donors unlawful

(1) It is unlawful for a prohibited donor to make a political donation.

(2) It is unlawful for a person to make a political donation on behalf of a prohibited donor.

(3) It is unlawful for a person to accept a political donation that was made (wholly or partly) by a prohibited donor or by a person on behalf of a prohibited donor.

(4) It is unlawful for a prohibited donor to solicit another person to make a political donation.

(5) It is unlawful for a person to solicit another person on behalf of a prohibited donor to make a political donation.

(6) A person who does any act that is unlawful under this section is guilty of an offence if the person was, at the time of the act, aware of the facts that result in the act being unlawful.

Maximum penalty: $10,000.

(7) If a person accepts a political donation that, by virtue of this section, it is unlawful for the person to accept, an amount equal to the amount or value of the gift is payable by that person to the Crown and may be recovered by the Crown as a debt by action, in a court of competent jurisdiction, against the person.

79E—Meaning of property developer and building entity

(1) Each of the following persons is a property developer for the purposes of this Division:

(a) an individual or a corporation if—

(i) the individual or corporation carries on a business mainly concerned with the residential or commercial development of land, with the ultimate purpose of the sale or lease of the land for profit; and

(ii) in the course of that business—

(A) 1 or more relevant planning applications have been made by or on behalf of the individual or corporation and are pending; or

(B) 3 or more relevant planning applications made by or on behalf of the individual or corporation have been determined within the preceding 7 years;

(b) a person who is a close associate of an individual or a corporation referred to in paragraph (a).

(2) Any activity engaged in by an individual or corporation for the dominant purpose of providing commercial premises at which the individual or corporation, or a related body corporate of the corporation, will carry on business is to be disregarded for the purpose of determining whether the individual or corporation is a property developer unless that business involves the sale or leasing of a substantial part of the premises.

(3) Each of the following persons is a building entity for the purposes of this Division:

(a) an individual or a corporation if—

(i) —

(A) the individual or corporation carries on the business of performing building work for others; or

(B) the individual or corporation carries on the business of performing building work with a view to the sale or letting (whether by lease, licence or other agreement) of land or buildings improved as a result of the building work; and

(ii) in the course of that business—

(A) 1 or more relevant planning applications have been made by or on behalf of the individual or corporation and are pending; or

(B) 3 or more relevant planning applications made by or on behalf of the individual or corporation have been determined within the preceding 7 years;

(b) a person who is a close associate of an individual or a corporation referred to in paragraph (a).

(4) In this section—

building work has the same meaning as in the Building Work Contractors Act 1995;

close associate of a corporation means each of the following:

(a) a director or officer of the corporation or the spouse or domestic partner of such a director or officer;

(b) a related body corporate of the corporation;

(c) a person whose voting power in the corporation or a related body corporate of the corporation is greater than 20% or the spouse or domestic partner of such a person;

(d) if the corporation or a related body corporate of the corporation is a stapled entity in relation to a stapled security—the other stapled entity in relation to that stapled security;

(e) if the corporation is a trustee, manager or responsible entity in relation to a trust—a person who holds more than 20% of the units in the trust (in the case of a unit trust) or is a beneficiary of the trust (in the case of a discretionary trust);

(f) in relation to a corporation that is a property developer referred to in subsection (1)(a) or a corporation that is a building entity referred to in subsection (3)(a)—a person in a joint venture or partnership with the property developer or building entity (as the case requires) in connection with a relevant planning application made by or on behalf of the property developer or building entity who is likely to obtain a financial gain if development that would be or is authorised by the application is authorised or carried out;

close associate of an individual means each of the following:

(a) the spouse or domestic partner of the individual;

(b) in relation to an individual who is a property developer referred to in subsection (1)(a) or an individual that is a building entity referred to in subsection (3)(a)—a person in a joint venture or partnership with the property developer or building entity (as the case requires) in connection with a relevant planning application made by or on behalf of the property developer or building entity who is likely to obtain a financial gain if development that would be or is authorised by the application is authorised or carried out;

officer has the same meaning as in the Corporations Act 2001 of the Commonwealth;

related body corporate has the same meaning as in the Corporations Act 2001 of the Commonwealth;

relevant planning application means an application for planning consent or building consent (within the meaning of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016) relating to land within the area of the council for which a candidate to whom a political donation is made, or is proposed to be made, is standing for election;

spouse—a person is the spouse of another if they are legally married;

stapled entity means an entity the interests in which are traded along with the interests in another entity as stapled securities and (in the case of a stapled entity that is a trust) includes any trustee, manager or responsible entity in relation to the trust;

voting power has the same meaning as in the Corporations Act 2001 of the Commonwealth.

79F—Loans included as political donations

(1) A loan that, if it had been a gift, would be a political donation is to be regarded as a political donation for the purposes of this Division unless the loan is from a financial institution.

(2) In this section—

financial institution means an entity whose principal business is the provision of financial services or financial products, and includes an authorised deposit-taking institution;

loan means an advance of money, the provision of credit or any other transaction that in substance effects a loan of money.

This is in relation to donors. Again, this is all about openness and transparency in local government. Just as we demand it at the federal and state levels, I think it is important that we do it in local government. Many of the important issues in local government surround development in the council area.

We know that a lot of their business is rates, roads and rubbish, but another important aspect that has to impact on local councils is development, whether they be commercial developments in their area or whether they be things like domestic dwellings they need to approve. Quite often, of course, they involve representations from the building sector with the interaction between planning departments of councils and also with builders.

The intention of this essentially is as an integrity measure, to ensure that there is no favouritism, that there is not any fear that there may be some form of corrupt activity at that level. What I am proposing in this is that, for the purposes of political donations, certain sectors be prohibited from being donors to candidates. These include property developers, a building entity, an industry representative organisation if the majority of its members are prohibited donors, or any other person or organisation that holds or has within the preceding seven years held a contract for services of an annual value of more than the prescribed amount with the relevant council.

I have an article here from ABC News, written by Rebecca Turner, published on 1 March this year, and it states:

Property developers are among the biggest political donors in Australia, but should they be allowed to be?

The article goes on to say:

Property developers are among the biggest industry donors in Australia, according to independent think tank, the Centre for Public Integrity. After scrutinising donation disclosures to the Australian Electoral Commission, between 1999 and 2019, the centre found that the property and construction industry donated more than $54 million in this time. Although the West Australian branch of the Liberal Party has struggled to raise funds in recent years, the centre found it received almost $3.7 million, the fifth biggest share of this pool of funds.

Local company Furama Pty Ltd was even in the top 10 of property and construction donors around Australia over the two decades, but in 2019 the think tank found that prominent Perth development company the Satterley Property Group Pty Ltd, was Western Australia's most generous property donor. However, its donations—of more than $36,000—went to both the Western Australian and Victorian branches of the Labor Party.

Some companies contribute to organisations which run political campaigns, such as the Business Council of Australia and the national office of the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union. These political campaigner groups now have to disclose donations to the AEC.

Why do they donate? As many donors explain, they like to support politicians and parties they admire. Chief executive and managing director of the Satterley Property Group, Nigel Satterley, told 6PR Radio earlier in March that Western Australian Premier Mark McGowan ran a seriously good government, and Satterley Property Group's political donations got the company 'no favours'. Donations aren't always just a straight cash transaction from a donor to a political party. They can also involve attendance at events or membership of clubs where people can have easy access to politicians.

Why do property developers want access to politicians? The property industry is in the business of land whose use is controlled by governments.

Of course, it is in the business of land that is not only controlled by state government but also in some cases by local government. The article continues:

Economist Cameron Murray said governments—from ministers to planning bureaucrats—made many discretionary decisions which were worth a lot of money to developers. Dr Murray, a research fellow at the University of Sydney, likes to call these decisions 'the golden pen tick'. The golden pen tick can be a subdivision approval or a rezoning of land, which can make your parcel of land suddenly worth a lot of money.

In a book called Game of Mates, Dr Murray, with fellow economist Paul Frijters, scrutinised six big land rezoning developments in Queensland to argue that access to power is the most important factor in getting discretionary planning decisions in your favour.

I've had people in the property industry say, 'Your research is not that interesting. I could have told you that,' [said Dr Murray].

But the Centre for Public Integrity report said that the access to politicians bought by developers weakened public confidence in Australia's democracy.

So I say that it should also apply to local government. Again, as I have said before, this is all about ensuring integrity in local government. I hope that my fellow members support the intent of this amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes this particular amendment. We are advised that, on this particular proposal, there has not been consultation with councils, or other parties I presume. I am not talking about political parties but other stakeholders, perhaps. I am advised that the legislation in other jurisdictions that has banned or capped political donations from particular groups has been subject to a number of challenges in the High Court. From the government's viewpoint, this emphasises the need to carefully consider any amendments of this nature before progressing them.

I do not intend to interrogate the precise details as to exactly how some of these particular amendments would work, should they be passed, but certainly on the surface they are extraordinarily complex. I look at 79B(3), for example. I am not entirely clear on what the impact of that would be but, on the surface of it, it says that, 'An annual or other subscription paid to a party by…a member of the party…is taken to be a gift to the party for the purposes of this section.'

That appears to me to read that if somebody joins the Labor Party and pays their $100 subscription fee, or whatever their affiliation or subscription fee is, it is taken to be a gift to the party for the purposes of this section, whereas certainly the Liberal Party would just see it as a membership fee for membership. I am not sure what work that particular subclause or provision is intended to do in relation to the honourable member's suite of amendments.

I am not sure what the position of the other groups in this chamber is to these particular amendments, but if ultimately they are to pass the Legislative Council I would suggest there will be significant issues in terms of trying to understand all the implications of this particular suite of amendments, which may well serve to delay the passage of the entire bill. I do not know the potential fate of the amendments in this particular chamber, but certainly these are very complex and complicated issues for which, if they are to be instituted by the parliament, everyone will need to fully understand the implications of what they are about to do and what it is they are about to impose upon councils and individuals.

Let's put aside those who have bad intentions in relation to the purpose of political donations but think of those who do not have bad intentions but nevertheless either want to be supported by a political party or indeed want to be supportive of a candidate for a particular election, or want to attend a lunch or a dinner or whatever it might happen to be, even at modest cost. There are a whole range of questions.

All I am flagging is that if this chamber ultimately were to support this particular amendment, I would foreshadow a complicated series of discussions that would need to ensue in relation to this suite of amendments. Given the long history of this particular bill, I am hoping that will not be required. I indicate the government's opposition to the package of amendments.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I rise to indicate that the opposition will be opposing this amendment. The amendment proposes to ban political donations from a range of prescribed categories. Whilst we again understand the genuine intent of the amendment, the opposition would want to see more detail about the justification for these changes, including determining whether the issue of political donations from developers is widespread at a local level and why only developers. We will be looking at supporting the Hon. Rob Simms' amendment that he will be putting forward, which will cover donations, as we feel it captures all donations that are being made above $500.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I rise in support of the amendment moved by the Hon. Frank Pangallo. The Greens have long been very concerned about the corrosive influence of donations from developers on our politics. The old saying, 'He who pays the piper plays the tune' comes to mind here, and I think the Hon. Mr Pangallo is correct when he says that people who are standing for local council should not have their campaigns bankrolled by developers who have a clear financial interest in getting particular outcomes through that level of government.

It is completely inappropriate, and I suspect if you were to have a referendum on such a question, were the government to be so minded to do that—I know that they are a big fan of those, generally when they relate to issues like workers' rights, though—I suspect most members of the community would agree that it is not appropriate for developers to be able to make donations and to exert, or to attempt to exert, influence over our political process in this way. It is for that reason that the Greens will be supporting the amendment. If the amendment is unsuccessful, I will call a division so that the views of members can be recorded.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: For the record, I indicate I will not be supporting this amendment.

The committee divided on the new clause:

Ayes 4

Noes 17

Majority 13

AYES
Bonaros, C. Franks, T.A. Pangallo, F. (teller)
Simms, R.A.
NOES
Bourke, E.S. Centofanti, N.J. Darley, J.A.
Hanson, J.E. Hood, D.G.E. Hunter, I.K.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I. (teller)
Maher, K.J. Ngo, T.T. Pnevmatikos, I.
Ridgway, D.W. Scriven, C.M. Stephens, T.J.
Wade, S.G. Wortley, R.P.

New clause thus negatived.

Clause 181.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Simms–1]—

Page 98, line 33 [clause 181, inserted section 80(1)(a)]—Delete 'within 30 days after the conclusion of the election' and substitute 'at the prescribed times'

If it pleases you, Chair, I will make some general remarks about the thrust of a series of these amendments because they all relate to the same topic, so in the interests of time I will deal with it that way. These relate to the disclosure of donations received. Currently, candidates who are standing for election to council disclose their donations that they have received after the election period.

What I am proposing, on behalf of the Greens, is that there now be two disclosures: one before the voting period and one after. This is a modest measure but it is an important transparency measure. I have always believed that sunlight is the best disinfectant and giving the community the most information possible I think is really vital so that people can make informed decisions.

If someone who is standing for council is being bankrolled by developers or another vested interest group, then, if this amendment is carried, for the first time members of the community will have access to that information. I think that would really enhance democracy at a local level. That is why we are pursuing this amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government is opposing this particular amendment. The government understands the principles and the purpose behind the honourable member's suite of amendments, which is to address the issue in local government elections of how to release information about campaign donations so that voters can consider this information as they are casting their vote.

It is the government's contention that this is difficult to achieve in local government elections due to the extended voting time frame. I have been advised that the only way to guarantee this information is completely available before the close of voting is to prevent candidates from receiving donations after a certain time, which is not possible as it could impinge on our implied constitutional rights to freedom of political expression.

These amendments tackle this question by requiring candidates to furnish a campaign donations return twice: once within a period of 21 days from the close of nominations and again within 30 days of the conclusion of the election. The government considers that a requirement for an additional return would put undue pressure on candidates during the time they are focused on campaigning, particularly noting that council candidates are typically managing their campaigns without the support of a party or other organisation behind them.

The government's policy on this issue is to require candidates who receive larger donations, which is expected to be an amount in the order of $2,500, to disclose this information in a much shorter time frame—within five days of receipt. I am advised that if a candidate receives a larger donation at any time prior to the election, they will be required to disclose that on the Electoral Commission website within five days of receipt of that particular donation. This will maximise the opportunity for voters to be aware of these larger donations, which the government assumes would tend to be of most interest to electors.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As indicated when discussing the Hon. Frank Pangallo's amendment referring to donations, the opposition will be supporting the Hon. Robert Simms' amendment. I acknowledge the mover's changes to his original amendment and thank him for changing the donation disclosure reporting time frame. This is an important change that will capture the true intent of his amendment: a form of live donation reporting.

Increasing donation transparency mirrors changes the Weatherill government made to funding and disclosure requirements. These amendments will give ratepayers access to a candidate's donation history before they cast their vote—donations made by any organisation or individual. It is important to note that this would only impact donations over $500.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I wholeheartedly support this amendment. It seems to be a roundabout way of my previous attempt to have disclosure of political parties. We may well have this in this amendment. I certainly endorse the intent of this amendment and what it can actually achieve. With that, we support it.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: For the record, I will not be supporting this amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Simms–1]—

Page 98, after line 38 [clause 181, inserted section 80]—After subsection (2) insert:

(3) For the purposes of this section, the prescribed times for furnishing a campaign donations return are—

(a) within 7 days of the end of the period commencing from the start of the disclosure period for the election (within the meaning of section 81B(a)) and ending—

(i) in the case of a periodic election—21 days after the close of nominations; or

(ii) in any other case—7 days after the close of nominations; and

(b) within 30 days after the conclusion of the election.

I do not propose to speak to this amendment. It is a consequential amendment and tied to the previous measure.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 182 to 187 passed.

Clause 188.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Simms–1]—

Page 101, lines 29 to 31 [clause 188(1), inserted subsection (2)(b)]—Delete paragraph (b) and substitute:

(b) in the case of a campaign donations return required to be furnished at the prescribed time applying under section 80(3)(a)—within 7 days after that prescribed time; and

(c) in the case of a campaign donations return required to be furnished at the prescribed time applying under section 80(3)(b)—within 8 weeks after that prescribed time,

I do not propose to speak to this amendment. It is a consequential amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 189 to 191 passed.

Clause 192.

The CHAIR: We move to amendment No. 5 [Pangallo-1].

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I believe this might be consequential, so I will not be moving it.

Clause passed.

Clauses 193 to 197 passed.

Clause 198.

The CHAIR: We now move to clause 198 amendment No. 6 [Pangallo-1]. Is that consequential as well?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Yes, it is. I will not move it, thank you.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Simms–1]—

Page 109, after line 6—After subclause (16) insert:

(16a) Schedule 1, heading to Part 8—delete 'and expenditure' and substitute:

, expenditure and disclosure

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: There is a further amendment on clause 198, amendment No. 6 [Simms-1].

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I am going to withdraw that amendment. That relates to the previous amendment No. 1 [Simms-1], which was related to political party memberships. I move:

Amendment No 7 [Simms–1]—

Page 109, lines 14 to 18 [clause 198(18), inserted clause 23(1)(a)]—Delete paragraph (a) and substitute:

(a) at the prescribed times—a campaign donations return under this Division; and

(ab) within 30 days after the conclusion of the election—a campaign expenditure return under this Division; and

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 8 [Simms–1]—

Page 109, after line 23 [clause 198(18), inserted clause 23]—After subclause (2) insert:

(3) For the purposes of this clause, the prescribed times for furnishing a campaign donations return are—

(a) within 7 days of the end of the period commencing from the start of the disclosure period for the election (within the meaning of clause 24B(a)) and ending—

(i) in the case of a periodic election—21 days after the close of nominations; or

(ii) in any other case—7 days after the close of nominations; and

(b) within 30 days after the conclusion of the election.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 9 [Simms–1]—

Page 111, after line 40 [clause 198(30), inserted subclause (2)]—After paragraph (a) insert:

(ab) in the case of a campaign donations return required to be furnished at the prescribed time applying under clause 23(3)(a)—within 7 days after that prescribed time; and

(ac) in the case of a campaign donations return required to be furnished at the prescribed time applying under clause 23(3)(b)—within 8 weeks after that prescribed time; and

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (199 to 209) and title passed.

Bill recommitted.

New clause 103.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move new clause 103, in lieu of deleted clause 103:

Amendment No 1 [Treasurer–4]—

Page 56, after line 20—Insert:

103—Amendment of section 194—Revocation of classification of land as community land

Section 194(2)(b)—delete 'follow the relevant steps set out in its public consultation policy' and substitute:

undertake public consultation on the proposal

I have moved this amendment on behalf of the government to resolve the matter that has resulted in relation to the process by which community land status can be revoked. The government acknowledges that the amendments to section 194 of the Local Government Act, revocation of community land, were not supported. However, it has come to our attention that the failure of these amendments means that the act will retain a reference to a council's public consultation policy in section 194(2)(b). This relates to the current scheme in the act that requires certain actions to take place when councils are required to consult.

Honourable members will recall that other amendments supported the proposal to replace this inflexible one-size-fits-all scheme with a new scheme that will require councils to consult in accordance with both the community engagement charter and any other standards and actions councils may include in their own consultation policies. The government, therefore, wishes to ensure that all obsolete references to public consultation policies are changed to the new community engagement scheme so that there is no lessening of expectations in regard to consultation.

This is particularly important in regard to community land revocations where the community may well have a keen interest in their council's proposal. This community engagement is a significant part of the process that councils must undergo when seeking to revoke the community land status of land in their area and also forms an important part of the minister's consideration of a request for approval.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I rise on behalf of the opposition to support this amendment, which is technical in nature. The opposition does this in good faith that the government will uphold the true value of community consultation that has been discussed throughout the bill.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: SA-Best will be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The Greens will also support the amendment.

New clause inserted.

Clause 198.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

That subclause (16a) be deleted.

We are a very collaborative government. I am advised by parliamentary counsel that I should move to assist the comprehensive settlement of a suite of amendments from the Hon. Mr Simms. Evidently, in the suite of amendments from the Hon. Mr Simms we inserted subclause (16a) but we should have deleted it.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I wish to thank the Hon. Rob Lucas for moving that amendment, and please accept my apologies for the error—newbie's nerves, I suspect. Thank you for your cooperation.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (17:05): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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