Local Government Amendment (Elections) Bill 2008

Thursday 10th April 2008

The Rev Fred Nile, Leader of the Christian Democratic Party, gave the following address to State Parliament yesterday in relation to the Local Government Amendment (Elections) Bill 2008.

“The Christian Democratic Party has some concerns about the Local Government Amendment (Elections) Bill 2008, which aims to improve the conduct and efficiency of local government elections, to improve the effectiveness of local government, and to reduce elections and associated costs. The first major amendments in the bill deal with the voting system. I am always a little suspicious about changes to the voting system, especially when I do not know how they will work in practice. The proposed new voting system will make voting in a contested election optional preferential when only one position is to be filled, and the proportional voting system applies in elections where two or more positions are to be filled.

We have been through this in elections at a State level. If only one councillor is involved and the voting system is optional preferential, there would be a temptation for major parties, in particular the Labor Government, to state that voters need to vote only for one councillor. It might be better if we had a full preferential voting system so that voters could then vote for all candidates. If there were only one candidate, that candidate would be elected as a councillor. If there were five candidates, they could be numbered one to five on a ballot paper, according to a voter's preference. The optional preferential system tends to favour major parties as opposed to Independents or minor parties. In a proportional voting system two or more councillors would be elected”, said Rev Fred Nile.

“When only two councillors are to be elected it is possible that one will be a Labor candidate and the other a Liberal or Nationals candidate, which would cut out a third Independent or minor party candidate. That might not be the intent of these changes but, as the Hon. Don Harwin said, we need time to examine the bill and to conduct a mock election to establish how each system will work. We also need to establish whether there is a built-in bias towards major parties. When the Government drafts legislation of this nature I assume it is tempted to favour itself. For a limited period councils will be able to make an application to the Minister for approval to decrease councillor numbers instead of first having to obtain approval to do so at a constitutional referendum, which appears to be a positive step forward. If council is in agreement and the Minister approves such an application, we would not need a constitutional referendum to give effect to it.

The bill introduces a new principle in the charter for councils expressing the duty to exercise responsible government in the period leading up to elections and to observe caretaker government conventions. These conventions, which apply at a State and Federal level, should apply also at the local government level. Prior to an election a council should not make any dramatic decisions involving a lot of expenditure; it should act only in a caretaker capacity. The bill also puts beyond doubt that the Director General of the Department of Local Government or other departmental officer can be appointed as an administrator of a dismissed council, and it clarifies that all previous appointments to date have been valid. It would be preferable that the administrator be a non-departmental person—someone who is genuinely independent in his or her approach—and not simply someone from the Department of Local Government.

The bill revises the deadline for the election of mayors elected by councillors from among their number to within three weeks after the declaration of the election, and that is a good proposal. The bill permits the New South Wales Electoral Commissioner to provide mobile pre-polling booths—a proposal supported by the Christian Democratic Party. There must be an evaluation and assessment of the cost of local government elections when the New South Wales Electoral Commissioner conducts those elections.

Many councils claim that they could conduct elections at much less cost, even 50 per cent less cost, than those conducted by the Electoral Commissioner, but they have no power to conduct elections because the legislation provides that that is exclusively the role of the Electoral Commissioner, who records the cost and sends a bill to the local councils. Councils have to pay the bill even when in their estimation the bill is twice what it would be if they had conducted the election. An evaluation may need to be made of whether there should be some tightening of the manner in which the Electoral Commissioner conducts elections and whether the commission pays higher rates for casual staff and others. If the commission does not have to pay the bill, perhaps it would not be concerned about the final cost.