Electoral Funding Amendment (Local Government Expenditure Caps) Bill 2019

Hansard ID: HANSARD-1323879322-108763

Hansard session: Fifty-Seventh Parliament, First Session (57-1)

Electoral Funding Amendment (Local Government Expenditure Caps) Bill 2019

Second Reading Debate

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr KEVIN CONOLLY (Riverstone) (16:01):

:38 I speak in support of the Electoral Funding Amendment (Local Government Expenditure Caps) Bill 2019, which amends the Electoral Funding Act 2018 to substantially amend the current expenditure caps for participants in local government elections. In October 2018 the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters reported on its inquiry into the impact of expenditure caps for local government elections. The committee made nine recommendations to substantially amend the current regime. The Government accepts the committee's recommendations, which are implemented by the bill. The bill seeks to create a fairer regime for all candidates in local government elections, regardless of whether they are independent or endorsed by a party. In local government elections the reality is that all candidates—whether they are part of an official party or an informal independent group—are competing on a level playing field and should be treated that way. All candidates are competing in local elections in local communities and are appealing to the same people.

The committee's main recommendation was to replace the current two-tiered regime of caps for candidates and groups with eight different bands that reflect the enrolment size of each council area. The bill implements this recommendation. The committee also recommended that the new model for expenditure caps apply equally to candidates or groups of candidates, whether they are endorsed by a party or not. This is implemented in the bill. That is a departure from the current regime in the Electoral Funding Act 2018, which set a slightly higher cap for independent candidates and groups compared with those for party-endorsed candidates and groups. The committee also recommended that when a party incurs expenditure for the purpose of an election in a particular local government area or ward that expenditure should be apportioned to any candidates endorsed by the party in that area.

The bill implements that recommendation, which maintains parity across all people contesting the election. The bill amends the current caps for parties by providing that for a local government election a party's cap for electoral expenditure for a candidate or group endorsed by the party in that election is the amount of the applicable cap for the candidate or group. The bill also provides that parties' expenditure for the purpose of an election in a local government area or ward is required to be aggregated with any expenditure of any endorsed groups or candidates in that area. This means that parties are not permitted to spend additional amounts on top of the amounts able to be spent by endorsed groups or candidates of the party.

These reforms are fundamental to creating a level playing field for all candidates, regardless of whether they are independent or endorsed by a party. The significant changes to the expenditure caps for candidates, groups and parties will assist in creating a fairer electoral funding scheme for New South Wales local government elections. This is the goal of all who are involved in this process. We want our communities to be properly informed and able to make an informed choice about the candidates that they would like to represent them. In local government, which is the level of government closest to people, we do not want the field to be skewed heavily by an imbalance in the amounts that candidates are able to spend.

The caps that are introduced by this bill reflect the scale of the enrolments in an area and allow candidates to communicate effectively during the campaign period with those whose support they are seeking, but not to overwhelm the contest with vast amounts of money, which would be inappropriate for small council areas. I think the committee got it right, and I think the bill, in reflecting the committee's recommendations, has got it right in trying to empower the people in a local government area to make an informed choice and to allow candidates to communicate with their electorates in a reasonable and sensible way that allows democracy to function properly.

Right across New South Wales—whether it is areas where parties generally run or in councils where most of the candidates, if not all, are independent—people can campaign in a way which is effective but which does not overwhelm and unduly favour those who have deep pockets over those who do not. We do not want councils to be only populated by people with deep pockets any more than we want State and Federal governments to be controlled by the power of money. We want people to be able to make a reasonable choice. We want candidates to be able to present a campaign and to articulate to the community what they stand for, and to allow the community to make a choice about whom they want to represent them. This balance is achieved better through this bill than through the process we have had to date. The bill is an improvement on the current regime. It is another step towards empowering the community to make the kinds of choices they need to make about the people they want to represent them. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms ANNA WATSON (Shellharbour) (16:07):

:09 In May 2018 the New South Wales Government launched an appalling and unfounded attack on our State's unions and, in turn, on our State's workers. The attack I am talking about went by the name of the Electoral Funding Bill 2018. Today, as we discuss the Electoral Funding Amendment (Local Government Expenditure Caps) Bill 2019, it is important to understand the reasons for its creation. This bill seeks to correct some of the merciless attacks contained in the previous legislation and, as such, I and my fellow Labor colleagues will not oppose this bill.

To reflect on last year, the Electoral Funding Bill 2018, in my opinion, was not just immoral but bordered on unlawful. Contained within this bill was an attempt to inhibit the power of our unions, to gag the voices of our workers and citizens, and to cement the power and pay packets of those opposite. The motivations behind last year's bill were not, as those opposite would have us believe, democracy and fine-tuning of the functioning of our electoral system. Instead, one underhanded motivation of that legislation that was shockingly clear to everyone on our side of the House was the New South Wales Liberal Party's hatred and fear of unions.

An attempt to ban third-party campaigners and individual citizens from organising properly outside of political parties is undemocratic. Make no mistake: The bill was an attempt to do just that. Ultimately, I believe that the New South Wales Government will be its own undoing. It has launched countless attacks on our unions, and allowed wage theft and the exploitation of our State's workers to run rampant. The system is not fair, and light is finally starting to be shed on the dark underbelly of countless industries in New South Wales.

People are finally listening to what has been happening behind closed doors in our workplaces. People are finally starting to understand their own rights and to be less trusting and more vigilant. People are finally understanding where to go for help—and that is, of course, to their union. The Electoral Funding Bill 2018, the bill which today's amending bill seeks to correct, was symptomatic of a much broader problem. Let us be clear: The tide is turning. The scales will tip back towards our State's workers in the very near future. Robin Hood would not have been so popular if he were stealing from the poor to give to the rich, and that is exactly what the Government is allowing to happen in our economy and in our workplaces.

Every week new cases of widespread wage theft are being made public, and it seems no industry will emerge unscathed. There was Qantas, the ABC, the Commonwealth Bank, Super Retail Group, Michael Hill, Calombaris' MAdE Establishment, Sunglass Hut, Bunnings, Neil Perry's Rockpool Dining Group, Woolworths and the list goes on and on. Those instances of wage theft represent millions of dollars taken out of the pay packets and superannuation entitlements of Australian workers. Millions of dollars have been greedily stolen by big business. Was there justice for these workers? Of course not—the businesses just received a slap on the wrist. If members are not angry about these examples and about how rife wage theft is in New South Wales then there is something wrong with them.

To return to the bill at hand, the amendments in the Electoral Funding Amendment (Local Government Expenditure Caps) Bill 2019 now provide for expenditure caps for an individual candidate or group of candidates in a local government election to correlate to the total number of enrolled electors in the local government area [LGA] or ward. Where the LGA or ward is smaller than 5,001, expenditure is capped at $6,000. An LGA larger than 20,000 and smaller than 30,001 has its expenditure capped at $25,000. It goes all the way up to an expenditure cap of $72,000 where the number of enrolled electors in an LGA or ward is larger than 125,000.

I remind the House that in the initial Electoral Funding Bill 2018, expenditure for parties with candidates in a general election was capped at $5,000 multiplied by the number of wards or local government areas not split into wards in which the party has endorsed candidates. There was no thought given to the size of wards or LGAs or the total number of enrolled voters. Likewise, in the 2018 bill the cap for third-party campaigners was $2,500 multiplied by the number of local government areas for which the third-party campaigner incurred electoral expenditure. Today's amendments will mean instead that in a local government general election the applicable cap for a third-party campaigner is the amount that is one-third of the applicable cap for a candidate for election.

To my understanding the rest of the Electoral Funding Amendment (Local Government Expenditure Caps) Bill 2019 will also ensure several things. Firstly, it will ensure that candidates, or groups of candidates, in all wards within a single LGA will have an expenditure cap equal to the cap of the largest ward in the LGA. Secondly, the bill will ensure that expenditure caps will be applied equally to candidates, or groups of candidates, whether they are endorsed by a political party or are independent. Thirdly, it will change the current expenditure caps in a local government election for a directly elected mayoral candidate to 125 per cent of the cap for a candidate in undivided LGAs and in multi-ward LGAs it will be capped at 100 per cent of the cap for a councillor, plus an additional 25 per cent of the cap for a councillor candidate in each of the other remaining wards of the LGA.

I understand that this piece of legislation and these caps have been supported by the NSW Local Government Association, and has been created in accordance with the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report on expenditure caps for local government elections. I will not oppose this bill, because it rightfully seeks to roll back the unfairness and the biased attacks contained within the Electoral Funding Bill 2018. I am grateful that the arbitrary figures that would have compromised the democratic and accessible nature of our State's elections have been removed. I will be more grateful when those opposite own up to their underhanded motivations and stop their cruel, irrational and unending attacks on our State's unions.

Ms WENDY LINDSAY (East Hills) (16:14):

:13 I speak in support of the Electoral Funding Amendment (Local Government Expenditure Caps) Bill 2019. The bill makes significant reforms to the current regime for expenditure caps in local government elections. The bill implements reforms recommended by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in October 2018. One of the issues considered by the committee was the expenditure cap for directly elected mayoral candidates. Currently, there are different expenditure caps for directly elected mayoral candidates, depending on whether or not they are in a group. If they are in a group, the group also has different caps, depending on whether or not it is independent or endorsed by a party. This is a complex system.

For a general election, the expenditure cap for a mayoral candidate is higher than for other candidates. During the parliamentary committee's inquiry, some stakeholders expressed concerns that the current caps for mayoral candidates may be too high and encourage candidates to run for mayor disingenuously just to access the higher caps. After considering the issues, the committee recommended changing the caps applicable to directly elected mayoral candidates and proposed the same cap for an individual mayoral candidate and a group that contains a mayoral candidate. The bill implements the committee's recommendation. The bill provides that for a local government election the cap for a mayoral candidate or a group that includes a candidate for mayor in an undivided local government area is 125 per cent of the cap that applies to a candidate for councillor of the local government area. For example, if the proposed cap for a councillor in a local government area is $6,000, the proposed cap for a mayoral candidate in that local government area is 125 per cent of $6,000—that is, $7,500.

Where the local government area is divided into wards, the cap for a mayoral candidate or a group that includes a candidate for mayor is 100 per cent of the applicable cap for a candidate for councillor in a ward plus 25 per cent of the cap that applies to a candidate for councillor in each of the other wards. For example, in a local government area with three wards the proposed cap for a candidate for councillor in each ward is $6,000. The proposed cap for a mayoral candidate in that local government area is 100 per cent of the proposed cap for a candidate for councillor of $6,000 plus 25 per cent of the $6,000 for the two remaining wards. The total cap is $9,000. The bill recognises that mayoral candidates are likely to incur additional expenditure for their campaigns. The bill aims to allow some additional expenditure for mayoral candidates; however, not so much that it would give candidates an incentive to run for mayor disingenuously. I commend the bill to the House.

Dr HUGH McDERMOTT (Prospect) (16:17):

:11 I contribute to debate on the Electoral Funding Amendment (Local Government Expenditure Caps) Bill 2019. The bill amends the Electoral Funding Act 2018 in line with reforms recommended by the report by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on expenditure caps for local government elections. The bill's proposed amendments determine the expenditure caps for local government elections based on the number of electors in a local government area or ward. The reforms are an attempt to create local government elections that are run in a fair manner, ensuring that candidates have the ability to communicate with electors without excessive expenditure by some candidates that may unduly influence the result.

The expenditure caps will be set to better reflect the reasonable cost of communicating to electors in local government areas and wards of varying sizes. The legislation passed last year was inadequate in this regard, providing for only two categories of councils based on the number of electors, which is not reflective of the large range of communities represented by local governments. Further, the only local government areas that were large enough to be in the category for higher expenditure caps were divided into wards. As each of these wards contained fewer than 200,000 electors, the lower expenditure cap applied.

The bill sets out expenditure caps for council elections based on eight different enrolment levels. These caps vary from local government areas and wards with fewer than 5,001 electors, which will have an expenditure cap of some $6,000, up to local government areas or wards with over 125,000 enrolled voters, where expenditure will be capped at $72,000. These expenditure caps better reflect the cost of running an election campaign in local government areas of differing sizes, taking into account both the fixed costs of running a campaign and the communication costs per elector.

Expenditure caps are also set out for mayoral candidates in local government areas where they are directly elected. In an undivided local government area, candidates for mayor may spend 125 per cent of the expenditure cap for a candidate running for a councillor position. In local government areas with multiple wards, expenditure will be capped at the same amount as a candidate for council with an additional 25 per cent loading for each ward in the council area. The new funding model set out in the bill also proposes consistent expenditure caps for independent and party-endorsed candidates. The Electoral Funding Act 2018 sets out that candidates and groups endorsed by a political party had an expenditure cap of $5,000 less than candidates running independently. Candidates could then spend $5,000 per candidate or group of candidates that they had endorsed, with the restriction that no more than $5,000 could be spent on any one campaign. This rule was unduly complicated and open to gaming, where a candidate could claim to be spending money for the campaign at large while doing so in a way that targeted a single ward or council area.

The bill also reforms the expenditure caps for third-party campaigners, setting it at one-third of the expenditure cap for candidates. It is important that we stay vigilant about undue influence being exerted by third parties on election results and the conduct of candidates, councillors and mayors. These expenditure caps will be based on the number of electors in each local government area or ward one year before the council election, with this figure provided to candidates to ensure that they are able to adequately plan for upcoming elections. In the case of a by-election occurring between normal election periods, the expenditure cap of the previous local government election will apply to that by-election.

It is important that workable expenditure caps are in place for local government elections. The vast majority of campaigns are run on a small budget by local community members wanting to make a positive change in their community. Some 97 per cent of local government campaigns spend less than $30,000. Wealthy candidates with the ability to spend large amounts of their own money or solicit large donations from third parties must not be allowed to overrun the election process. It is vital that candidates without large financial resources are able to compete in council elections on a level footing and to ensure that their ideas are able to reach electors without being drowned out by high-spending campaigns.

I thank the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for conducting the inquiry and making the recommendations that have led to the bill being introduced to the Parliament of New South Wales. The inquiry was conducted in a professional manner with appropriate stakeholder engagement. I note that although there was some disagreement about the size of the expenditure caps, the committee's recommendations were broadly bipartisan. Also, the findings of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters were endorsed by the Local Government Association at its recent annual conference.

The recommendations made by the inquiry were sensible reforms to ensure that the Electoral Funding Act 2018 included reasonable and fair restrictions on expenditure. It is a shame that the committee was not properly consulted and allowed to conduct an inquiry before the introduction of the original legislation in 2018. The reforms that have to be made to this legislation could have been avoided if proper consultation had been carried out before its introduction. The Opposition does not oppose the proposed amendments to the Electoral Funding Act 2018. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr JAMIE PARKER (Balmain) (16:22):

:47 I address the Electoral Funding Amendment (Local Government Expenditure Caps) Bill 2019. I am delighted to say that The Greens believe that the bill is an important addition to the responses required to address how we fund and manage donations and expenditure in elections. There is no question that the current legal framework for local government expenditure that the bill seeks to amend is amateurish—it is unworkable, quite frankly, and it is inconsistent.

We welcome these spending caps for local government elections and support the direction of these reforms. The Minister is with us in the House today. We appreciate the approach that the Minister has taken. Along with her staff, she has undertaken an exemplary job regarding the bill. It provides a very positive model for how laws are made. It is not always necessary to have conflict and disagreement; in fact, we can often come to points where we all agree if we take the time to listen respectfully to each other's perspectives. One of the problems that we have had in the past is that things have been rushed and there has not been the opportunity to take the time to consider things carefully.

I appreciate the approach the Minister has taken to undo some of the problems with the current arrangements and make sure we have a principled and workable process to manage election funding frameworks going forward. We believe that it should be ideas and not cash that determines the outcome of elections. It should be about community engagement. That should be the driving force behind council elections, and how we communicate with the members of our community should be about direct interaction, rather than carpet bombing the electorate with very expensive material, advertising brochures and so on.

However, there has to be sufficient capacity to produce materials to engage with local residents to allow ideas to be communicated. This is not just a political belief, but it recognises the constitutional limitations that the Parliament has faced on restricting political communication in election campaigns. There are clearly fixed costs that all candidates are likely to incur, and then as campaigns scale up to meet the needs of larger council electorates there are some economies of scale that can be achieved in producing campaign materials. In my own community my electorate covers part of the City of Sydney and the Inner West Council. The Inner West Council now has almost 200,000 residents. That is a significant sized council that needs some resources to ensure that the ideas that candidates put forward can be communicated effectively.

Caps that are set too high will inevitably favour wealthy candidates and wealthy donors and/or corporate supporters. This can happen to the detriment of local democracy and the ability of local communities to competently and relevantly be represented. Parties' expenditure is aggregated with the expenditure of any endorsed groups or candidates. The proposed caps in the bill are broadly supportable. We would have supported them being lower, but we understand the position the Government has taken and we will not be opposing the bill. We raised concerns in our submissions about the possible risks that mayoral elections would allow some candidates to essentially buy councillor positions by deploying significant resources in what could euphemistically be called a mayoral campaign, which is really intended to secure ordinary councillor positions.

The addition of the 25 per cent increment for each additional ward recognises this without paying an excessive incentive for false mayoral campaigns designed solely to increase expenditure. No double dipping is allowed so that a candidate can receive only the councillor cap or the mayoral cap that is applicable. That is a good step. The cap on third-party campaigners is set at one-third of the applicable cap for that ward or local government area. This reflects the right of community groups and unions, amongst others, to have a say in local elections, but limits this to ensure that their influence does not unfairly impact on local decision-making. The Electoral Commission is also required to publish the number of enrolled electors for elections and is required to notify candidates of the relevant number of electors.

I will not go through the entire list of the categorisation and the substance of the bill. This is an important step forward and I am sure the Minister and others can point to previous council elections where huge amounts of money were spent to win and capture local government roles. We know local government is very important and those who are seeking to profit from development or rezoning can sometimes look at local council as an opportunity to influence in an unfair manner to the detriment of those seeking legitimately to represent their community. It is important that we take these matters seriously. I was disappointed when the original bill came to the House. It was done in such a way that was unsatisfactory and is not the way we should be developing laws.

There may have been reasons for that, but what we have here today is a very thoughtful process that has engaged all of us in Parliament to ensure that when it comes to elections at least we can all agree we want them to be fair and transparent, and for everyone to have an opportunity, whether a single candidate, an independent candidate or a candidate from the Liberal, National or Labor Party in government. This bill goes a long way to achieving that. I thank everyone who has been involved. Mr David Shoebridge in the other place and others have been very pleased with the way this interaction has happened. This is a good example that while we may not agree on things all the time, if we listen to each other respectfully we can often come up with very good legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK (Bankstown) (16:28):

:55 I make a brief contribution in debate on the Electoral Funding Amendment (Local Government Expenditure Caps) Bill 2019. I note from the outset that the Opposition does not oppose the bill, but indeed supports the bill. The bill clearly has support from across all political parties. Each member in the House wants to see more integrity in our electoral system, not only at a State and Federal level but also at a local government level. I commend the Government for bringing forward this legislation.

The Electoral Funding Act 2018 currently contains electoral expenditure caps for candidates and groups standing in local government elections. The caps are different in value and are based on factors such as whether the candidate is endorsed by a party, whether they are a member of a group, and the number of enrolled electors at the previous general election. The Act also specifies caps for mayoral candidates and political parties that endorse candidates. As we have heard, in August 2018 the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters commenced an inquiry into the impact of expenditure caps for local government election campaigns that closely considered the adequacy of the expenditure caps for candidates at local government elections introduced in the Electoral Funding Act 2018. In recent years we have heard much about local government. A number of councils have been referred to the ICAC. There have been amalgamations, some of which were controversial and some not. There have also been examples of investigations into specific councillors and councils. It was a fitting time to also have a closer look at local government. This is one way of ensuring that we have integrity at a local government level.

I commend the committee and its work in undertaking a vast inquiry with a range of hearings, working closely with Local Government NSW President Councillor Linda Scott and different stakeholders, councils and councillors, and the community at large to produce a report that contained nine specific recommendations. The bill will now implement these recommendations. Expenditure caps outlined in section 31 (3) to section 31 (9) of the Electoral Funding Act 2018 will be substantially amended by the bill to provide eight specific cap amounts that are based on the number of enrolled electors for the local government area [LGA] or ward. The expenditure caps contained in the bill range from $6,000, where the number of electors is smaller than 5,001, to an amount of $72,000, where enrolled electors exceed 125,000.

The expenditure of all candidates and groups standing for election in an LGA will be equal to the expenditure cap applicable to the biggest ward in the LGA. These new expenditure caps will apply equally to candidates and groups of candidates, whether from a political party or not, and that electoral expenditure incurred by a political party be apportioned to any endorsed candidate. The expenditure caps for mayoral candidates in undivided LGAs will be an additional 25 per cent on top of the applicable expenditure cap. In LGAs that are divided into wards the mayoral cap is an additional 25 per cent for each remaining ward.

Under this legislation caps for third-party campaigners, such as unions, community groups and lobby groups, will be set to a third of the amount applicable to the candidate. In calculating the expenditure caps the number of eligible voters will not include non-residential voters, except where voting is compulsory for non‑residents, as it is in the City of Sydney Council. The bill also contains provisions requiring the Electoral Commission to notify candidates of the number of enrolled electors and the corresponding applicable expenditure cap. That communication between the Electoral Commission and the candidates is critical so that they understand their obligations.

From time to time there are people standing for election to local government for the very first time. They may not be part of a political party. Candidates who belong to a political party are provided with a degree of support by their party to understand what their obligations are in disclosing their electoral funds, expenditure, donations, and so forth. There are many examples in the past of candidates who did not make the declarations that they were required to. There was one particular councillor—I will not name him, but he was not a member of the Liberal, Labor or The Greens parties; he was an Independent and thankfully is no longer in public life—who when questioned about why he failed to make declarations said he did not know that he had to.

It is important that candidates understand their obligations and understand that they must comply with these expenditure caps. There are many vested interests in local government, more so than State and Federal government in many respects. A councillor can have significant influence in a local government area, particularly with tenders that come before council, often in confidential session, and information is provided to councillors on planning and rezoning of their council areas. They are privy to far more pertinent information than even members of Parliament so it is important for there to be just as much vigilance of local government as there is of State and Federal government with respect to any influence. There is more work to do in this area.

Another bill is to come before the House that seeks to tighten this area of political donations and I will speak more about that area when the bill is introduced. It is important for councillors to understand that expenditure caps should not be abused and that they should not find loopholes to avoid their obligations. I note that the Minister for Local Government is at the table. When there is an opportunity to review the legislation down the track, there should be some discussion with the Electoral Commission following the next council elections—which will be in 2020—that once declarations are made, a review be undertaken to ensure there has been full compliance and, if there has not been full compliance, that the matter be somehow rectified in the future, perhaps with the introduction of tougher legislation.

I take this opportunity to commend the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for its hard work. I commend the Hon. Walt Secord in the other House, shadow Minister for Local Government Greg Warren, Minister Don Harwin and Minister Shelley Hancock for their respective roles in this area of local government. I commend the committee members for bringing forward these recommendations and the Government for ensuring that these recommendations will be part of a very important bill.

Mr MARK COURE (Oatley) (16:37):

:45 I speak in support of the Electoral Funding Amendment (Local Government Expenditure Caps) Bill 2019, which amends the Electoral Funding Act 2018 to amend the current expenditure caps for participants in local government elections. I commend the Minister for Local Government for her outstanding work on this bill and her staff, who are here today. Expenditure caps for local government elections were first introduced by the Electoral Funding Act 2018. During the parliamentary debate on the Electoral Funding Bill 2018 questions were raised about whether the caps should further distinguish between local government areas and wards with different population sizes.

In response in August 2018 the Premier made a referral to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and I thank the committee for its outstanding work in this space. The committee was asked to inquire into and report on the impact of the current expenditure caps for local government areas and wards with different populations. In October 2018 the committee reported on its inquiry and made nine recommendations to substantially amend the current regime. The bill implements these recommendations. The main recommendation by the committee was to substantially amend the current model for caps for candidates and groups.

Currently the Electoral Funding Act 2018 provides a two-tiered regime of caps for candidates and groups, depending on whether there were 200,000 or fewer enrolled electors at the previous general election for the local government area or ward, or more than 200,000 enrolled electors at the previous general election for the local government area or ward. The committee recommended replacing this regime with eight different bands to address the concerns raised during its inquiry that the current scheme fails to adequately distinguish between local government areas or wards of different population sizes.

I have raised with the Minister's staff over the past couple of months my concerns in regard to the different sizes of wards, population sizes and the extent of the expenditure cap, but this certainly makes a lot of sense. The recommended expenditure caps for a candidate or group are as follows: $6,000 where the number of enrolled electors for the local government area or ward is smaller than 5,001, $10,000 where the number of enrolled electors for the local government area or ward is larger than 5,000 and smaller than 10,001, and it goes up in increments from there, with the final band being $72,000 where the number of enrolled electors for the local government area or ward is larger than 125,000.

Many of the local government areas or wards in the Georges River City Council—the local government area that encompasses my electorate in the St George area—are larger than 20,000 but smaller than 30,000, I would have thought, which means that the caps for candidates or groups moving forward would be, I presume, $25,000. The bill implements this recommendation. I thank the Minister and her office for the work they have done on this. The changes are intended to reduce the variation in amounts a candidate is allowed to spend on a per capita basis as between local government areas of different populations. To ensure parity within a local government area, the bill also provides that candidates or groups of candidates in all wards within a single local government area will have the expenditure cap that applies to groups or candidates in the ward with the highest number of enrolled electors in that local government area. Again I thank the committee members for all their hard work during the inquiry and to everyone who made submissions to the committee. Again I thank the Minister and her staff. I commend the bill to the House.

Mrs SHELLEY HANCOCK (South CoastMinister for Local Government) (16:42):

—:02 In reply: I thank all members for their contributions this afternoon—the members for Campbelltown, Riverstone, Shellharbour, East Hills, Prospect, Balmain, Bankstown and Oatley who, for the most part, made relevant and intelligent contributions. I appreciate their obvious interest in local government and their commitment to local government in view, obviously, of the elections that we are having next year. This bill implements reforms that have been recommended by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The proposed changes will further the electoral funding scheme's objects of fairness and transparency in local government elections. I commend the bill to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER:

The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Motion agreed to.

Third Reading

Mrs SHELLEY HANCOCK:

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.