 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: In making my second reading contribution to the Local Government Bill I discussed several different goals which I had in mind. I approached the Local Government Bill with the aim of establishing the framework for good government and I equate good government largely with local autonomy. It is my belief that local autonomy is to be encouraged wherever possible, and where it does not conflict with other more fundamental or important principles or goals which our society holds dear. In my speech on the Local Government Bill I identified three particular goals which I saw as being of higher value than simply the goal of local autonomy. Those three goals were democracy, accountability and ecological sustainability.
This Bill is about the first two of those goals. The Local Government (Elections) Bill is all about the mechanism for keeping local government fully accountable and the mechanism, of course, is called `democracy'. This is about more than mere local autonomy. In the matter of conducting elections we do not wish to leave everything to the elected representatives of local government. This is an area where the goal of local autonomy has to be sacrificed in large measure to the greater goals of democracy and accountability. It is inevitable, therefore, that there is a great deal of prescription in this Bill. In seeking to support democracy and accountability I will be seeking to insert even more prescription. I make no apology for that. I am a Democrat, both as a member of the Democrat political Party and in my own choice of politics. Our Party is the most democratic Party in Australia, in its own Constitution, its internal affairs and in its commitment to policies that foster the twin goals of democracy and accountability. We believe passionately that everyone has the right to be heard, to have their vote counted and to vote for a candidate of their choice, whether it is at the level of Party policy, local, State or national elections. In fact, it is more than a right. When it comes to electing a Government, it is a duty. It is an obligation upon those of us fortunate enough to live in this civilised democratic society. Our obligation is to take heed of the structures and mechanisms that make our society civilised, democratic and representative and play a small part in keeping those structures and mechanisms truly representative simply by exercising a choice at election times.I do not believe that that can be achieved by the Bill that is before us. Therefore, I signal that I will be moving amendments which would have the effect of increasing participation in local government elections and the fairness of those elections. The aim of my amendments can be stated simply: a compulsory voting procedure or, as I prefer to call it, a compulsory compliance procedure. It will not surprise honourable members to learn that my amendments will make it compulsory to at least return a ballot envelope or collect a ballot paper at a polling booth. That is the situation that we have sought to have in the State electoral legislation and it is, in fact, part of the current State Electoral Act.
The Democrats see voting not merely as a right but also as a duty and there is no reason why local government should not be treated as any less important in this regard than State or Commonwealth Government. As to postal voting, the Bill prescribed postal voting as the inclusive method of conducting local government elections, save that outside metropolitan Adelaide. The returning officer may utilise polling places if he or she believes that postal voting would not increase voter participation.
I can see no reason to limit this provision to council areas outside metropolitan Adelaide. Why should polling booths be outlawed in the city and suburbs? If we wish to maximise voter participation, both postal voting and polling booths should be utilised. My new version of the schedule to this Bill and other consequential amendments will make it compulsory for each council district to have at least one place where polling booths are set up. The question of whether to have any more than one polling place should be left to the discretion of the local returning officer for the district.
In relation to qualifications for enrolment, it is undemocratic to allow (as this Bill allows) one person to exercise two or more votes; that is, one in their private capacity and one on behalf of each corporation or group they may happen to represent. My amendments would not deny any company a right to a vote, but no person acting as a company representative should have a second vote as an individual. In relation to ballot papers, rather than have the order of the names of the candidates determined by lot (as required by clause 29), the only fair way to have candidates listed on ballot papers is by rotation. A system called the Robson rotation exists in Tasmania and the ACT and merely ensures that no one candidate gets the advantage of being listed first on the ballot paper and attracting the donkey vote: all will have equal turns. In relation to a citizen initiated poll, clause 9 of this Bill allows a council to initiate a poll on any matter if council wishes. This is a power which should not be confined to councillors. I will be moving to allow ratepayers to petition for a poll. However, I propose setting a high bar for those wishing to force council to hold a poll on any issue. A petition to demand a poll must be supported by at least 10 per cent of ratepayers with signatures collected inside a three month period. My final set of amendments will not only enhance democracy but also save a great waste of paper and should perhaps be thought of as an environmental initiative as well. At the time of nomination, the candidate must submit a profile statement which can include a recent photograph and, after nominations close, candidates may also submit their how-to-vote recommendations. This information can then be distributed to all voters along with their ballot papers. The information from all candidates can then be distributed to voters at the one time. Each candidate's profile, photograph and how-to-vote recommendations can be fitted onto one sheet of paper containing enough information for a voter to make an informed choice. It makes sense to have the returning officer insert all this information at once into the same envelope which contains the ballot paper. It simplifies the process and, presumably, will do away with some of the incentive for candidates to stuff your letter box with pamphlets in the lead-up to the vote. That concludes the summary of the amendments that I will be moving, and I indicate that the Democrats will be supporting the second reading of this Bill.