Legislative Council, Wednesday 1 June 2022

Ms FORREST (Murchison) - Mr President, I have listened to the debate and found that even among members who currently have or have had local government experience there is a divergence of views, which reflects the divergence of views in local government itself. I said that in 2013 so I thought I would read it again. It was pretty much where I started.

Mr Willie - There might have been more local government representatives in the Council then.

Ms FORREST - There probably would have been, slightly more.

Mr President - I believe the other place has more retired mayors than we do now so that old joke has fallen flat.

Ms FORREST - At the time there was not so much debate, to my mind. I listened to what was said towards the end about the compulsory voting. It was more about the dual responsibilities. That was where the real contention was at the time. I made the point in my contribution also that I had sought feedback from the councils on a number of occasions and had to basically badger them to get a response. There was an exchange with the former member for Rosevears, Kerry Finch, about how much consultation there had been, so I do not know what we do here. As I said by interjection, it is consultation to death or none. Maybe there is a happy medium but I am not sure what it is.

In broad terms, this bill seeks to do two things. I am not going to go back over the process issues. If anyone wants to know about those comments then they can read that speech and I do not need to repeat any of that. I want to speak about the bill and the role of local government in that. This bill seeks to do two things, predominantly: to make voting compulsory in local government elections, something that I have supported in principle for some time because I believe compulsory voting allows those whose voices are not often heard and those who are disenfranchised a much more robust opportunity to have their voices heard. That is good for democracy, as other members have commented. It is the right thing to do in terms of ensuring that voices are heard. It is much harder to have particular interests captured and then reflected around the council table that may not be representative of the views of the broader community. The more we can engage people in our democracy, at whatever level of government, the better.

The other key part of this bill is to introduce two vote-saving measures to try to reduce the rate of informal votes.

Before I move on to the nature of what the local government is, I want to talk a bit more about compulsory voting. I do not know if many of you here remember the first time you voted. I do. I remember going into a polling booth. I must have been 18 when I could vote. It is a long time ago. When did the voting age become 18?

Ms Rattray - A long time ago.

Ms FORREST - Anyway, when I was old enough to vote - whether I was 18 or 21, I cannot remember - I still felt very young, inexperienced and vulnerable. That is how I felt, fronting up to this polling booth with this box and a pencil and a piece of paper with names of people I had no knowledge of at all. I had seen some posters around the place. You see a bit of this but then it was up to me. I was keen to exercise that right, but it felt very daunting. We still have a body of work to do to encourage people to understand our democratic processes, what the various aspects of our government and levels of government are and help them to engage in a meaningful way.

Those of you at the reconciliation breakfast this morning will remember a question from one of the young people that came with the Commissioner for Children and her youth advisory council. Her question to both the speakers, which was Kaytlyn Johnson and Thomas Mayor, was 'what is a referendum?' Because they talked about the referendum is a step that was important in the pathway to treaty truth. And it was answered very well by Thomas Mayor in his explanation to a young person. I thought how courageous of that young person to put her hand up and ask that question in a room of nearly 600 people. What courage. I could not have done it.

But it just highlights to me the fact we do have a lot of work to do, and making voting compulsory at local government level encourages that right from the very grassroots, from the people who are closest to the people. The local government is the level of government closest to the people.

Mr Valentine - To inform the member for Murchison, it was 1973 when the vote changed.

Ms FORREST - Then we went to 18. No, it would have been when I was 21. I still remember it, though. I do not remember which booth it was in, but I remember going in there, and thinking 'I have got to do this right' and having very little background knowledge. I was already a registered nurse by the time I was 21.

Mr Gaffney - You would have been 18. You would have voted at 18. You would have been young enough then. Because in 1973, it became 18.

Ms FORREST - Oh, 1973, when it became 18. I would have been 18 then.

Mr Gaffney - Unless you are older than what you have told us.

Ms FORREST - I might be.

I will get back to the facts of the bill. I wanted to read a couple of bits out about local government. It is important we are not doing anything extraordinary here in amending a bill related, or introducing legislation related to local government. To read from the - this is really exciting reading - The Constitutional Systems of Australian States and Territories. This is an older version as this print is 2006. It says here of local government: (tbc)

The third level of government in Australia, the system of local government within each state and territory, exists by virtue of state law. It is almost as old as the grants of self-government to the states made during the second half of the 19th century. There is no constitutional guarantee under the Commonwealth or state constitution that a local government system in each state will remain in place. They are only there because of this place. Nonetheless, following the example set by Victoria 1979, all state constitutions now formally recognise local government as another level of elected government within their respective states. The Victorian constitution provides the model provision in this respect. Local government is a distinct and essential tier of government, consisting of democratically elected councils, having the functions and powers that the parliament considers unnecessary, to ensure the peace, order, and good governance of each municipal district.

The constitutional commission in 1988 recommend the insertion of a new section 1, 1, 9, A in the Commonwealth constitution to require each state to provide for the establishment and continuance of local government bodies in accordance with state law. This proposed amendment was defeated at the 1988 referendums. Such a provision would have prevented a state from completely abolishing its system of local government. In Queensland, a referendum is required to abolish its system of local government, although it is not effectively entrenched. A similar position exists in South Australia, where instead of a referendum, an absolute majority of members of each house is required. Individual councils, though, remain vulnerable to dismissal by their executive government except in Queensland and Victoria, where this can only occur with parliamentary approval.

Given the significant contributions of local councils to the provision of key public services throughout Australia and their accountability as democratically elected institution of government, or the taxes they impose, the Commonwealth Constitution should formally recognise the system of local government as the third level of government in Australia.

The book authored by George Williams, Sean Brennan and Andrew Lynch, Australian Constitutional Law and Theory, under the chapter Federalism and the Engineer's Case, says -

The system of Federalism created by the Australian constitution involves two tiers of government in which power is divided between the Commonwealth and the states. Each tier has its own institutions of government and an executive parliament and judicial system. Although Australia also has a system of local government, this is not mentioned in the constitution. Local governments exist only as long as they are maintained by the states that have created them. Two attempts to change this by recognising local government in the constitution failed at referenda in 1974 and 1988. [TBC]

Section 45A(1) of the Tasmanian Constitution Act, states that -

There shall be in Tasmania a system of local government with municipal councils elected in such manner as Parliament may from time to time provide.

Regarding some of the comments made by some elected members in our local government areas, we need to come back to the fact that we are absolutely doing everything within our power here in this place. Even if they were not consulted this time, they have been in the past. Views and situations have changed and I accept all of that, but, there is the power within this parliament and under the direction of the government of the day to bring forth such legislation. .

Mr Valentine - Otherwise we would not be here.

Ms FORREST - Local government would not exist as a level of government without the state.

Mr Valentine - We are responsible for the structure.

Ms FORREST - Yes; and whether or not they exist. And we have the power to make laws about them.

Some members have talked about compulsory voting in terms of postal voting. I believe COVID-19 showed us that there are some people who much prefer to vote at home. I have talked to people who are quite able and not vulnerable who chose to get a postal vote in the federal election this time, mainly because they could and you did not need some excuse. I pre polled, because I was going to be in Victoria on election day. I did not have to say why I was doing it; there were times you had to justify it - being overseas was a fairly good reason, back in the day when you could travel.

This time, it was simply, 'You are a pre-poll out of region - you go over here', and that was it. I have talked to other people who chose to get a postal vote because they wanted to sit down and take their time over the vote. They wanted to read up on some of the candidates. They did not want to than stuff it up like I did when I got to number 23 and 24; but I went back and got a new senate paper and fixed it, because I was going right the way to 39. But voting at home, you can do your list on a piece of paper and then make sure that you get it right on your ballot paper, and you do not feel pressured. That is one of the things that I felt when I walked in to that ballot box the first time. I felt pressured, I felt very uncertain, I felt like someone was going to be watching what I am doing and how long I take over this. I do not worry about that now, but, as a young person it was a very different experience.

Let us make it as easy as we can. Maybe the family can sit around the kitchen table and have a chat about who are these people, what do they stand for? You would hope parents would not direct their young adult children in how to vote, but rather would help them understand the system if they know how it works themselves.

The Government has a body of work to do around voting, regardless of what happens with this legislation. I asked in the briefing and I ask it again of the Leader, because I need a clear answer. I am not of a mind to hold up the bill into the Committee stage, because we will not get there until after the answers the Leader gives; it might depend on what she says here. We know from the briefing that local government was engaged in a priority list of what they wanted to see happen before this election this year in October. They identified one-to- five voting as a priority to reduce the number of informal votes. The other measure was that you have to vote to a number and if an error occurs after that, it does not invalidate your vote; it only invalidates the point below that error.

That does not really seem contentious. It seems as though LGAT are on board with that and they have had discussions about it. Kevin Bonham has made very clear and articulate comments about the value of such a move. What we did hear was that making voting compulsory was a matter that was not consulted at the time; it was not on their priority list; and it came as quite a surprise that it was happening, according to the LGAT representative who spoke with us.

I consulted my five local government areas. I have not heard back from all of them, and I have not had time to press them. There was mixed support. Mayor Quilliam from Circular Head commented, 'Why make people might vote if they are not interested?'. I respectfully do not agree with that opinion. I believe we should be encouraging people to participate and making it as easy as we possibly can to do that.

The Mayor of Burnie, Steve Kons, was very much of the other opinion - that they should not come whingeing to us if they have not voted. He was not quite as blunt as that, but that was the approach.

Mrs Hiscutt - That is what I got from him also.

Ms FORREST - Yes, we share the Burnie municipality. If we were to carve out just those provisions around the vote saving measures and remove the sections related to compulsory voting, does that create a problem within the bill? I want them to answer this honestly. I want to hear if we could have those as standalone provisions and then deal with the compulsory voting later on. I am not saying that that is what I want to happen; I want to know if it can happen - because, as I have said, in principle I support compulsory voting. However, I am concerned that there has not been proper consultation at this time with this clearly on the table.

It might have been on the table in 2013, but it was not on the table this time, not directly. It may have been in the background, one of those things that is being considered that will be raised again in LGAT conferences and things like that, but it was not on the list of priorities.

Mr Gaffney - Through you, Mr President. The member has raised a good point because in the 400 submissions they have had in the directions paper, you are right, compulsory voting was not raised as an issue. A lot of the people who went in to talk about what was in the paper, probably did not even bring that up as something to have debated. It was not on the agenda.

Ms FORREST - They may or may not have, but I am interested in whether that could happen. It is not necessarily a break point for me; I want to understand what is possible here because that will determine whatever happens with the second reading and I assume it will be supported into the Committee stage at least, from what I have heard around the Chamber. That is the time we make such a change.

Most other members have talked about the process, and I did speak about that earlier. I do not want to go back through those comments, because it is all very clear and on the record, and I understand why people are feeling quite frustrated.

However, I do ask, if this bill was voted down, what is the worst that would happen? The worst that would happen is that we would have an election in October this year; it would not be compulsory; we would probably still have a fairly high informal vote; and we would have to wait four more years for another election where it would be compulsory. That is the worst, in terms of doing nothing or voting this down.

If we support it as it is, then we have an opportunity for the Government - and they should pay for the promotion and public information; there should not be any questions about this, because it is Government legislation they bought it in. They did not ask local government if they wanted it or not and so any promotion public information should be funded by government. End of story. I know the Leader is going to clarify these matters.

Ms Webb - It was not just the cost of the education that was being asked about before, from other members, it was the cost of actually conducting it.

Ms FORREST - There are two aspects to this. The really important thing is those aspects of public education, the awareness raising we should have about how a democracy works, as well as voting in local government elections particularly, if it became compulsory. It must be funded by the Government. The other question around who pays for the actual increased cost of a bigger turnout - that has usually flown onto local government, is that still the case? That has been well articulated by the members indicating they would also like to hear the answer to that. Going back to the best that can happen, if the bill is supported, particularly with the votes having measures in it, then you should see a higher voter turnout.

The member for Hobart, did ask some questions, about informal voting, and different frameworks with other jurisdictions. We did get a table with this. It was interesting to read this, because there is no real consistency. I was responding to the member for Hobart about your question on the number of informal votes when you have to mark a certain number. I want to read a couple of them, because it is vast and you cannot say one way or another.

In New South Wales: the number of votes to cast, they are instructed to mark preferences to half the number of vacancies and ballots are valid if at least one preference is marked. Surely that means going one-two? The turnout is 79.58 per cent, that is pretty good, compared with Legislative Council elections - what was your turn out, member for McIntyre?

Ms Rattray - It was 83 per cent.

Ms FORREST - It is slightly lower than that. With the mark in the balance in Queensland, I seriously do not know how this one works. It says that either one mandatory vote, voluntary to mark preference, so you can just put one or you must mark as many preferences as there are vacancies. I guess that is pretty clear on the ballot paper, either mark one and you can go further or you go, I do not know. They only have a 77 per cent turnout.

Victoria must mark preferences for all candidates, but they do have single councilor wards in a default electoral structure, which is different. In 2020 they had an 81.74 per cent turnout.

South Australia, you must mark as many preferences as there are vacancies, so you have got to go all the way. They had a 32.94 per cent turnout, that did not work so well did it?

One message you can take from that is if you have got to go all the way, and there is no choice, then you may not get such a good turnout and good formal vote from that. There is information then, it was quite interesting to read because I do not think there is any particular one right way. We do know even from the federal election mistakes are made, inadvertent, some are deliberate. They will draw and write unsavoury things on the ballot paper.

Mrs Hiscutt - And draw things.

Ms FORREST - I was talking to some scrutineers about some things that were drawn on some of them. Particularly on women's ballot papers, a bit sad.

There are also people who genuinely think they are doing it right, like the member for Launceston, who talked about the older man who signed his ballot paper and made it invalid, thinking it was the right thing to do.

We need to make it easy for people, particularly in our regions, in some of our parts of our state where people have low literacy levels. It is all well and good to write nice clear instructions on the top of the ballot paper, but if they cannot read and comprehend it, it does not help anybody. We need to make this as easy as we can and help to educate our people into how to make their vote count. Surely this is what we want.

Mr Gaffney - In Western Australia they just tick. They might have five ticks.

Ms FORREST - I am not suggesting that. We need to educate people about the value of voting down the ticket to make your vote count. That is why I refuse to vote above the line in the senate. I want to determine where my vote goes and I will. I vote across party lines and all over the place and always have the last spot for someone very special. It was a bit of a competition this year. I struggled, but that is my democratic right and if we educate people about if your vote exhausts that means after it goes a certain distance, then your vote no longer counts in any further decisions. I do not think a tick or a cross is the right thing unless you only have two candidates in a by-election say.

Mr Gaffney - Some people might say there are nine positions on council. I do not know whether that one is the best number one or that one is nine. I want nine people so they tick nine times. It gives each person a vote so it is easier than having to number one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, because a person has to decide if is John better than Betty.

Ms FORREST - If we are going to do preferential voting we have to have numbers because otherwise you cannot. If that is the system we want to work with we have to educate people about how it works.

Mr Gaffney - I think the reform would have done that.

Ms FORREST - I am not trying to change the voting system. I am acknowledging there are different ways it is done in the different states and other jurisdictions, but what is important is whatever we decide on, it needs to be a model that increases the validity of people's votes, makes them count as far as they can to ensure the people who the majority of people want in this parliament or in the local government or wherever it is are the ones who end up sitting in the seats.

The member for Nelson did not get the most primary votes when she was elected. Neither did the member for Huon, but they are here because preferential voting, if you could not have this person I want that person and that is how it works.

Mine was different. I led from the front all the time when I was first elected which was very nice to do but it was still stressful. However, because you get the highest number of number one votes in an election where there is preferential voting, it does not mean you are going to take the seat. Some people disagree with preferential voting and that is a choice. However, what we have here is we are dealing with is legislation that helps to preserve that and reduce the number of informal votes.

I will close with that comment that in principle I support the measures in this bill. I have been concerned about the processes I have already articulated. I would like to know if this bill could be split, acknowledging that if we did split it, compulsory voting would not come in until 2026 should it be supported. It is for this parliament to decide.

Go Back