HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-11-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Statutes Amendment (Local Government Elections Review) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 October 2025.)

The Hon. B.R. HOOD (11:53): I rise to speak to the Statutes Amendment (Local Government Elections Review) Bill 2025, and indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition. This is a long-awaited bill, because we are now nearly three years—in fact, pretty close to three years, I think—since the last local government election, and we are only now asking parliament to consider changes to the local government elections process in what are the last sitting days of this parliamentary term.

This proposed bill seeks to make a number of administrative changes but also a series of substantial changes, including but not limited to any vote cast in a local government election must be by an individual on the electoral roll, regardless of whom that vote was cast on behalf of or where. This includes any noncitizen voting which, as the opposition, we have about a position on. It does also excludes non-South Australian ratepayers who may own property within the state but not reside in it. It is our opinion, as the opposition, that if you pay you have a say.

Councils must also now hold, within this bill, public information meeting sessions on prospective candidates unless the council explicitly resolves not to hold such a meeting in the caretaker policy. This is an ambiguous change, which means that the council body that is finishing up can effectively decide whether there is going to be a public meeting, rather than those who are actually involved in a process. We do believe this is a relatively poorly constructed policy change, which we will oppose.

Telephone voting is now extended, as per state election regulations, which we will support. The number of candidates nominating for a role is to be updated as soon as possible, although the names of nominees will be kept confidential until close of nominations. I think those of us who were involved in the last round of local government elections did see what may have been termed as unintended consequences.

I think the consequences were quite easily seen. We certainly saw that in the Limestone Coast, where we had a number of councils that simply did not have anyone put their hand up to be mayor. Once nominations were closed and that became publicly available, there was of course the rigmarole of having to go through and try to figure out who was actually going to put their hand up for mayor, which does put a fair bit of pressure on councils and local government. We will be amending that part of the bill to include the names of nominees to be published as soon as possible. I believe the Hon. Rob Simms is doing the same, which we will support.

The bill also allows pre-poll voting at supplementary elections through to 2030. This, in our mind, is another poorly put together and quite ambiguous amendment to the existing arrangements. We are not sure how the timing of what the government is intending to do will be able to be achieved and we will oppose that.

With regard to specifying reimbursement amounts available to members for printed communications with constituents, the explanation we received in the briefing did not explain this well, so unless the committee stage may bring some answers we will not be supporting that either. Again, there is a raft of other changes which we will be supporting, but in regard to the last one here—disclosure by candidates of adverse conduct findings by the Ombudsman or the Behavioural Standards Panel, which will be in regulation—we will oppose this due to consistency.

In regard to our amendments, amendments Nos 1 to 3 and Nos 5 to 16, these and the subsequent amendments are really about our philosophy that if you are an Australian citizen or own property in the council area you deserve to have an opportunity to have a say in the electorate. Again, I have already spoken to that. We think that is important. Again, if you pay you really should have a say. We will certainly be trying to make sure that those amendments do make it through.

In regard to the government amendments, I will maybe just save some time. Amendments Nos 1 and 2 we will be supporting, allowing an extra day for an Electoral Commission process. Amendment No. 3, again as I had stated, obligating all councils to hold public meetings during an election campaign, we will not support. We do not support amendments Nos 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 from the government, which are around reimbursement of expenses incurred by a member producing printed material.

Amendment No. 6 we will support, providing greater clarity around powers and council officers. In regard to amendments Nos 7 and 11, we would rather our solution for eligibility, which we have put forward, and we know the Hon. Robert Simms has as well. Amendment No. 10 from the government we will be supporting.

In regard to the Green amendments, we will oppose any amendments around lowering the voting age.

The Hon. R.A. Simms: Surprise, surprise.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: 'Surprise, surprise,' says the Hon. Robert Simms. Amendment No. 7, again, we will certainly be supporting, as it is the same as our amendment. We will be opposing amendments Nos 8, 9, 10 and 19. We will be opposing amendment No. 11 allowing council allowance to have the PAYG removed, as we believe this is unnecessary and outside our jurisdiction. We will be opposing amendment No. 1 [Simms-2], which we do not believe is applicable or necessary.

There are several aspects of this legislation where we think the changes can be fine-tuned, because we believe that they are in the expectation of the community, and we hope that the government will in good faith consider the amendments to make these expectations of the community reflected in this amendment bill. I will say that it is a little disappointing that we have had to wait nearly three years to actually get to it, given we are only a year away now from more council elections.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (11:59): I rise to speak on behalf of the Greens in support of the local government elections review bill. This bill makes a number of changes to the laws that govern local government elections. The Hon. Ben Hood has outlined the key tenets of the bill, so I do not propose to go through them further. Suffice to say that a number of these are positive advancements and they address issues that have come to light. It is interesting: I know the honourable member said the government waited too long to take action on this. I recall, in the dying days of the Marshall government, one of the last bills we dealt with then was a local government reform bill, at virtually exactly the same time four years ago. I had the opportunity to participate in that debate as well.

I do think it is regrettable that local government reform pieces tend to happen at this stage in the cycle, because we do tend to run out of time. It is not a criticism specifically of the Labor government, as I say, because the Liberals did exactly the same thing. Rather, we should make sure that, after each council election, we have a thorough and comprehensive review and deal with all those matters early on in the parliamentary term so that we have an opportunity for a big tidy up.

To my mind there are issues around compulsory voting, for instance, to which I have an open mind and would really like to look into. There are questions about councils' rating capacity and the exemptions that apply, which I think would be really worthy of further examination. These are all issues for the next parliament, and I certainly intend to raise them then, but this is a good first step.

I also acknowledge the minister, Joe Szakacs, for the collaborative way that he and his office have engaged with the Greens. It is fair to say that the minister has been very open minded in the approach that he has taken and adopted a real commonsense approach to good ideas coming from the crossbench, so I thank him for that.

In terms of some of the amendments that the Greens are advancing today, some will not be of any great surprise to members as they are consistent with the things I have raised before, but some are a little bit new, so I thought I would use this second reading stage to just flesh out the focus of the amendments. The first amendment I will move will be to lower the voting age to 16 years in local government elections. This would promote the involvement of young people in the democratic process by lowering the voting age for local government elections to 16. It would give the opportunity for young people to have their voices heard. We know, of course, that 16 and 17 year olds are old enough to drive, they pay their taxes, they are old enough even to join the military; surely they should be old enough to vote in local government elections.

We are facing a situation at the moment where faith in democracy is really starting to decline, and I know that the Malinauskas government has been doing good work in terms of trying to engage young people with citizenship. This gives them an opportunity to have a real say in local democracy and also build their understanding of how elections work by participating in local council elections. Anything we can do to increase the participation in local government, we should look at.

I am disappointed to hear the Liberals say they do not support this change, but not surprised. I mean, if the latest opinion polls are anything to go by, 16 and 17 year olds are not that likely to vote for the Liberal Party. But I am disappointed to hear that the Labor Party is not supportive of this, particularly when one considers that the issues we are dealing with as a parliament are intergenerational. Housing inequality, climate change, transport policy, these are things that 16 and 17 year olds have a real stake in, and I would like to see the Labor Party finally listen to those young people.

The other amendment that I will be moving will be to introduce an option for local government members to opt in to use the pay-as-you-go for allowances paid to local government members. This is an unusual amendment in many ways, but something I became aware of during my time on local government. A lot of people who participate in local government as elected members work other roles and the allowance is, in effect, a second income source for them. But because the usual pay-as-you-go arrangements do not apply, that means that when you get to the end of your financial year you can be stung with a huge tax bill. Given local councillors are not paid very much money, that seems to add insult to injury to sting people with a huge tax bill at the end.

At least my amendment allows local government members themselves to opt in to use pay-as-you-go for allowances so that the council administration can collect that for them and they are not stung by a significant tax debt at the end. Local governments, of course, and administrations already have the mechanism to do this because they use these processes for paying their employees. So I feel this is a very simple amendment, but one that would actually be a positive advancement for people who serve on local government.

The other amendment I am moving: that the names of each nominee be published prior to the close of nominations, takes up a key issue that has been raised on multiple occasions. Indeed, I think the Hon. Sarah Game has raised it and the Liberal opposition has raised it as well. I think it is fair to say that in my discussions with the minister he initially had some concerns around this but has been open to entertaining that amendment, and I thank him for that.

One of the reasons for this amendment is, I think, a concern that has been flagged by a lot of regional councils that in situations where you have small communities you might find yourself in a situation where there are no nominees in a particular ward, and finding out who exactly is nominating and where might help prospective candidates decide whether or not to put their hands up, so this amendment really is taking up that issue. It used to be the case that that information was disclosed prior. It was taken out in the local government reforms back in 2021 and this proposal is to put it back in.

My next amendment deals with the pooling of campaign funds. What I am proposing is where candidates who are pooling their funds for the purposes of campaigning, the candidates would be required to disclose this to the returning officer and then the returning officer will publish this information. I just note for members that there are two versions of this amendment that have been filed. I will only advance the amendment that requires the disclosure be made to the returning officer, and that is on the basis of feedback I have had from the government. That second amendment has been circulated.

This is a really important transparency measure. I became aware many years ago now of the practice of elected members or council candidates pooling all of their funds to reduce the costs. Indeed, the failed Team Adelaide faction affiliated with the Liberal Party pioneered this technique in the 2018 local government elections. That was under the leadership of Houssam Abiad and Alex Hyde, who is now the state director of the Liberal Party. They pioneered this technique where people would put all their money into some sort of joint account, or pool the costs, produce materials together and reduce the costs for individual candidates.

So they are running in effect as a group of candidates, but that has not been made transparent to the voters. I do think that is of real concern and voters do have a right to have access to that information. In the case of the failed Team Adelaide faction led by Alexander Hyde of the Liberal Party, in that instance Mr Hyde denied that there was a factional grouping in Town Hall, as did Mr Abiad and the other people who were affiliated with that faction.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: I'm shocked.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Yes, I was too, the Hon. Mr Hunter, that that information was concealed from the voters until after the election had taken place. This amendment provides more transparency. I am disappointed to hear that the Liberal Party is not supportive of that because I think that transparency does enhance faith in our local democracy.

The final amendment I am moving is that candidates be required to include a disclosure of their political party membership and that that disclosure is published in all election materials. I did work with the previous local government minister in the Marshall government, Vickie Chapman, who I believe had carriage of this bill at that time, to ensure that there was disclosure of political party membership in the nomination statement. That was a positive advancement, and I do recognise the Liberal government for moving in that direction. But the area that is missing, I think, is on election materials. So what I am proposing is that there be a statement that is included on any election material produced by a candidate to say whether or not they are a member of a political party.

Finally—and just for your peace of mind, Mr President, I am going through this in detail now so that I do not do so at the committee stage—the last amendment I am moving is to open up the City of Adelaide Act to set a requirement that the meetings be fortnightly. The current requirement under the legislation is that meetings be once a month. The convention in the City of Adelaide has been that meetings occur fortnightly.

There was, though, an unfortunate incident that occurred in around 2020 when the Team Adelaide faction took control of the city council. They removed the requirement for fortnightly meetings and moved to meetings being once a month. What that meant was that the meetings started at 5pm. They reoriented the agenda so that any confidential items were at the front of the meeting, so the community would be excluded, and meetings would go on until three, four in the morning on some occasions, with no community input and no media reportage.

What we saw was a level of government that is so closely connected with the community really being cut out from any contact with the community because these meetings were suddenly being set up to be endurance exercises. As a local councillor it was deeply disappointing, because I would work a full day at work, I would turn up to a meeting and I would be stuck in meetings until two or three in the morning with an empty gallery where no-one in the community was able to take part. That was a Team Adelaide-Alexander Hyde innovation. So I have proposed that instead we mandate once a fortnight so that these meetings can occur on a normal frequency and within a normal timeframe.

That is a summary of my amendments. I hope that some of these will be considered positively as a way of improving this legislation and ensuring that we learn from some of the mistakes that have been made in the past.

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