Local Government Elections

Hansard ID: HANSARD-1323879322-96689

Hansard session: Fifty-Sixth Parliament, First Session (56-1)

Local Government Elections

Ms SONIA HORNERY (Wallsend) (12:42:54):

I move:

That this House:

(1)Notes that only five Hunter councils conducted elections on 10 September 2016.

(2)Notes that as a consequence there was uncertainty and inconvenience in the Hunter as residents were not sure if they would be fined for not voting, when in fact they did not need to vote.

(3)Calls on the Minister for Local Government to explain why there was such confusion with council voting across New South Wales.

Last September, some of my constituents went to the polls to elect their local representatives. The bulk living in the Wallsend electorate did not get a chance to have their say; however—thanks to the Baird and Berejiklian governments' mismanaged council amalgamation agenda—people did not know what they had to do. My office was inundated with calls from residents who were unsure where to vote, when to vote, or even if they had to vote at all. It was a symptom of the uncertainty Wallsend residents living in the Newcastle local government area have been forced to grapple with over the past two years.

Even as the new Premier hoses down talk about mergers in rural areas, the future of Newcastle City Council remains uncertain. Finally, the Premier declared that the marriage between Newcastle and Port Stephens was annulled, but that uncertainty caused much local anxiety—and the failed merger kept Newcastle City Council under a cloud, preventing council from getting on with work vital for the city. The local government reforms undertaken by the Baird Government were a slapdash, hurried affair from the very beginning. I have been told by council staff members and elected representatives involved that trying to meet the Fit for the Future criteria was a Sisyphean task. One said:

The goal posts kept shifting, the process was murky and we couldn't help feeling that the outcome would be decided on the whim of the Local Government Minister alone.

It was 20 October 2015 when it was reported that many Hunter Councils failed to meet the Minister's Fit for the Future criteria. In that opening salvo, Newcastle and Lake Macquarie were deemed unfit, while Port Stephens was found to meet the criteria. Eighteen months on, Lake Macquarie was found fit to stand alone and went on to hold its elections last September, returning a full-bodied and diverse council led by a popularly elected local mayor. The Minister for Local Government changed his mind on Port Stephens, once declared fit, and decided it was to be merged with Newcastle. It was estimated the merger could cost the ratepayers of the two councils between $20 million and $30 million—a drop in the pond compared with the $590 million already spent by the Baird Government on amalgamations statewide. That is now wasted money. From the beginning, the concept was a dud. A young constituent who grew up in Port Stephens said the idea of the merger of the two councils was ridiculous. He said:

Port Stephens and Newcastle are very different places, with different needs.

Indeed they are. He continued:

Port Stephens is a great deal more rural than Newcastle. If the new council was centred on Newcastle, residents in the more remote parts of Port Stephens would lose out.

I agree; they would. A local resident told me:

It feels like the western suburbs of Newcastle don't get enough attention from Council as it is. How is it going to be any better if Council has to cover an even bigger area?

Last November, it was reported that council elections in Newcastle could be pushed back as far as the 2020s. President of Local Government NSW, Keith Rhoades, was quoted saying:

They say the delay will 'reduce the potential for voter confusion and additional cost', but I wouldn't be worrying too much about voter confusion. As we've just seen in the Orange by-election, voters are anything but confused about this Government and council amalgamations.

Is it not odd that the Government is now worried about voter confusion into the future when it was not very concerned in the past? Indeed, the Minister seems to be very confused. One of the biggest problems is the confusion of the Baird and Berejiklian governments about the whole nature of mergers, non-mergers and where we are headed. There is a great deal of uncertainty in the Newcastle council area and among my residents. Now that the Premier has hit the reverse button, it is time for full accounting. his farce cannot go on any longer. It has gone on far too long. When will the new Premier and the Minister for Local Government explain to my constituents why this expensive, ill-considered and ultimately pointless policy was allowed to drag on for so long? We await the answer.

Mr ADAM CROUCH (Terrigal) (12:49:36):

I thank the member for Wallsend for bringing forward this motion on local council elections. She is an active member and she frequently brings forward notices of motion. She should be applauded for her advocacy for her constituents. I listened intently to the member's contribution to this debate. She started by stating that the plan for local council amalgamations was cobbled together quickly. I remind the member for Wallsend the plan was four years in the making and involved extensive consultation at the local government level. I note the member for Wyong and the member for The Entrance are in the Chamber, and both have been very vocal in opposing council amalgamations on the Central Coast. They have run scare campaigns, but the reality is the community is benefiting from amalgamations to the tune of $10 million that will be invested in community-based projects to be rolled out as part of the process. I ask the member for Wyong and the member for The Entrance whether they are opposed to the amalgamation, given that our communities will benefit from the process.

Mr David Harris:

What is the cost of the amalgamation?

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Bruce Notley-Smith):

Order! The member for Wyong will come to order.

Mr ADAM CROUCH:

I am sure they will both attend the openings of those projects, happily shaking hands and saying how wonderful the projects are for their communities, while at the same time spending hours pontificating about council amalgamations. I laughed when I saw a protest held on the forecourt of the Gosford City Council chambers opposing amalgamations, because there was a massive crowd of one person. The reality is that council amalgamations, while difficult and sometimes a bit cumbersome, result in benefits for ratepayers. The NSW Electoral Commission was responsible for the majority of elections held on 10 September 2016. The commission was acutely aware of the risk of voter confusion arising from the fact that not all councils held elections on the day. The member for Wallsend said she was inundated with phone calls about the election date. I remind the member that State members of Parliament are elected to answer such calls from their constituents. I was more than happy to field questions from people on the Central Coast about when council elections were being held. It was very clear from day one, 12 May, that elections would be held on 10 September. The commission paid for extensive advertisements saying that councils would go to elections on 10 September, as is the practice for every council election across the State.

Those opposite are bleating about what these advertisements cost. That is the cost of democracy and making sure that everybody is informed. Those opposite could choose not to pay for such advertisements. When they were in government, they notified councils of amalgamations via fax on a Friday night with no consultation, no deliberation, no community involvement. The reality is that this Government took a responsible course of action with Fit for the Future, a project four years in the making, and councils like the Central Coast Council and the people of the Central Coast are reaping huge rewards from the process. As I said, there was an extensive information and advertising campaign to inform electors in the wider community about councils that were holding elections on 10 September and of their voting responsibilities. Four councils did not participate in those elections, and they were Dungog, Maitland, Newcastle and Port Stephens.

I have spoken to the member for the Upper Hunter, and he told me that at every opportunity he informed community members that Dungog residents would not participate in the election. I would have hoped that the members for the electorates of Maitland, Newcastle and Port Stephens had done the same thing. Unfortunately, that obviously was not the case. Instead they complained about amalgamations rather than telling constituents what was happening. I commend the member for Wallsend, who was happy to take calls and inform her constituents about what was going on. That was the right thing for a State member to do. Those opposite can run campaigns opposing council amalgamations, or they can do the right thing, like the member for Wallsend, and inform voters about what is happening.

The then Minister for Local Government issued media releases in late August urging everyone who was not enrolled to vote to check whether their council was holding an election on 10 September. In addition, electors who were uncertain about whether they were required to vote on 10 September were encouraged to visit the NSW Electoral Commission website where they could check their enrolment details and look up their street address to find out whether they needed to vote. This could also be done by phone or, in some cases, by calling their State member to ask for advice on what was going on. My office was more than happy to take calls from anybody on the Central Coast wanting to know when council elections were being held. I also did extensive media interviews notifying my electorate about elections.

The Office of Local Government issued a circular to councils in late August 2016 encouraging councils holding elections on 10 September to take their own steps to inform electors in their areas of the requirement to vote. Councils were encouraged to do this by way of information placed on their websites, media releases, paid advertising, mail-outs and social media. The Office of Local Government circular contained a definitive list of which councils were holding elections on 10 September and which were not. Ordinary local government elections were held on 10 September for councils that had not merged and were not subject to a merger proposal. That included the Central Coast Council that will go to elections on 9 September 2017, for the benefit of the member for The Entrance and the member for Wyong—in case they missed the announcement. Councils subject to merger proposals with a decision pending had their elections deferred. These councils include the councils of Dungog, Maitland, Newcastle and Port Stephens.

Again I commend the member for Wallsend for bringing forward this motion. As I have clearly outlined, there was every opportunity to clarify exactly when elections were being held and for which councils leading up to 10 September 2016. It is a pity that those opposite, especially the member for The Entrance and the member for Wyong, try to jump on the bandwagon to criticise council amalgamations. Instead they should have informed constituents when council elections would be held. I look forward to seeing them at the release of the Stronger Communities Fund project.

Mr DAVID MEHAN (The Entrance) (12:56:42):

I support the motion of the member for Wallsend on local council elections. On behalf of the Labor caucus I note that the member for Wallsend is held in high regard for the way she uses the notices of motions process to raise issues on behalf of the Opposition. I also record my personal appreciation for the work the member does on behalf of the Labor caucus. The motion goes to the Government's local council amalgamation process, which is sometimes referred to as Fit for the Future. The motion addresses the question of democracy regarding local government and how that is being affected by the amalgamation process. The amalgamation process covers a lot of things, but it does not have a lot to do with democracy. There has been a good amount of gerrymander as part of the process, as was evident in relation to Parramatta where the closest Labor voting areas of Granville were excluded from the new City of Parramatta Council. The initial proposed boundaries for City of Botany Bay council tried to destroy a strong Labor council, which shows that the amalgamation process is about a bunch of things but it is certainly not about democracy.

Mr Adam Crouch:

Point of order: Temporary Speaker, I ask you to draw the member back to the leave of the motion moved by the member for Wallsend. The motion has nothing to do with Parramatta; it is to do with councils in the Newcastle region.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Bruce Notley-Smith):

Order! The member for The Entrance will return to the leave of the motion.

Mr DAVID MEHAN:

I will, but I make the point that I sat and listened to the member for Terrigal, with his big mouth in this place, without interjecting.

Mr Adam Crouch:

Point of order—

Mr DAVID MEHAN:

I heard him talk about Central Coast councils and I did not take a point of order.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Bruce Notley-Smith):

Order! The member for The Entrance will resume his seat.

Mr Adam Crouch:

Members should not cast aspersions on other members.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Bruce Notley-Smith):

Order! The member for The Entrance will be a little more respectful.

Mr DAVID MEHAN:

I will not use the term "big mouth" again when referring to the member for Terrigal in this debate. I withdraw it. Much confusion has been created as a result of this amalgamation process, and that confusion has undermined democracy in our area of the Central Coast that borders the Lake Macquarie council area. The member for Swansea has told us that half of her electorate voted last year, while the other half is looking at the prospect of maybe voting this year. There is still a lot of uncertainty in the Central Coast community. I try to quell people's concerns about whether or not there will be an election this year, but the whole process this Government has followed in amalgamating councils has created a tremendous amount of confusion—and a tremendous amount of waste.

The money wasted by this process could have been better spent on hospitals, teachers and fixing the social problems in our area. Eighty-one councils conducted their elections last year. We do not know how many councils—the member for Terrigal could not tell us—will be conducting their elections this year, because the Government just does not know. The nature of this process has caused confusion and it has undermined democracy. It is an excuse for imposing cuts to government services and it has been handled appallingly.

Mr MARK COURE (Oatley) (13:00:51):

When it comes to local government reform we can count on this Government, this team of individuals. I acknowledge the Minister for Multiculturalism, who just walked into the Chamber. He is an outstanding Minister. We can count on this team when it comes to local government reform, because we get it right—unlike those opposite. What did Labor do in its 16 years in government? It sent a Friday night fax to amalgamate councils in the inner west. There was no consultation. It sent a Friday night fax—and I will explain to the member for The Entrance what a fax machine is afterwards—to amalgamate some country councils in New South Wales. There was no consultation—no discussion whatsoever. I feel for the people who lost their jobs as a result. I feel for those communities that were forced to just take it on the chin—because there was no consultation. It was a midnight thought bubble of the then Premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr, and his Minister for Local Government, who was—who was it? Who knows?

Mr David Mehan:

You're telling the story.

Mr MARK COURE:

They do not even know. They do not even know who the Minister was. I will tell them in a second.

Mr David Mehan:

Point of order: As I was reminded earlier—

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Bruce Notley-Smith):

Order! What is the member's point of order?

Mr David Mehan:

The point of order is that the speaker should address the motion.

Mr MARK COURE:

All you have to do is say, "Standing Order 76".

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Bruce Notley-Smith):

Is the member's point of order taken under Standing Order 76?

Mr David Mehan:

Yes. Thank you for helping me, Mr Temporary Speaker. You are always helpful. That is what we on this side like about you.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Bruce Notley-Smith):

Order! The member for Oatley will return to the leave of the motion.

Mr MARK COURE:

It is good that the Labor leadership has taken my advice to give those who will see out the remaining two years of this term the opportunity to speak on motions like this. It is good to see the Labor leadership taking my advice by giving some of their one-termers a shot, a go at getting up on their feet and debating.

Mr Ray Williams:

You are running Labor's strategy in here.

Mr MARK COURE:

I am running Labor's strategy, it seems. I acknowledge the member for Wallsend for moving this motion, but I remind the House that on 18 July the New South Wales local government elector information campaign began. It communicated messages to all the councils that are amalgamating and to all the councils that were having elections. I will let other speakers expand on that.

Mr DAVID HARRIS (Wyong) (13:04:52):

I too thank the member for Wallsend for moving this motion. I am conscious that today is Thursday. Those of us on this side of the House call it "stand-up Thursday", and the last contribution was certainly a lot of stand-up comedy, but it did not have much substance. Let us get to some of the facts. The advertising campaign across the State was so ineffective that, in the 77 council areas where elections were conducted, around 524,000 eligible voters failed to vote. A bit more than half a million eligible voters failed to vote because the Government's advertising campaign was so ineffective.

In 2012, when 137 councils had their elections, 12 per cent of the electorate failed to vote for whatever reason—usually because they did not like their local council, so they exercised their right not to cast a vote. But in 2016, with 77 council elections—about half that of 2012—20 per cent of eligible voters did not vote. That was probably, as the member for Wallsend has rightly pointed out, because they were very confused. Government members want to deny this. They want to talk about how they are out there answering phone calls and doing advertising campaigns and all that. But the reality is that one in five voters did not vote. They did not vote because they did not realise their council was having an election. Government members can pontificate all they like, but the reality is that there was confusion in the electorate. That is the serious aspect of this motion. People can call each other names and all sorts of things, but the reality is that the Government failed in its fundamental responsibility to make sure that people were able to exercise their democratic right to vote.

On the Central Coast—I am covering this because it was raised by the member for Terrigal—all the elected councillors were undemocratically sacked and an administrator put in place. I do not like to do this, but I will quote one of the councillors who voted for amalgamation—Councillor Greg Best, an Independent. It was reported in the media last week that he admits he made a mistake, that the $10 million that was mentioned by the member for Terrigal was "nothing more than a cheap bribe". That is what he called it. When they costed what it would take to amalgamate, the estimate was $100 million—$100 million to amalgamate Gosford and Wyong councils. For that, there was a bribe of $10 million for community projects.

Time expired.

The biggest issue that people on the coast have is that they were not given their democratic right to decide whether or not amalgamation should happen. In a democratic society, when one has two already large council areas, one would have thought it important to go to the voters and ask whether or not they wanted an amalgamated council. But this Government did not do that. This Government was very arrogant and just said, "You are going to amalgamate." A lot of people are now very upset that the administrator, an unelected official, is making major decisions about the Central Coast—and there is no-one they can go to. They cannot go to their local elected official and ask to have representations made on their behalf. Meetings are held secretly and only selected people can comment. All of those community members are coming back to me, the member for The Entrance and the member for Swansea. They would not go to the member for Terrigal because, as the member for The Entrance said, he does not answer his phone. []

Mr CHRIS PATTERSON (Camden) (13:09:14):

I oppose the motion moved by the member for Wallsend.

Dr Hugh McDermott:

Don't do it. Has your council merged?

Mr CHRIS PATTERSON:

The member for Prospect referred to Camden council—an excellent council that is fit for the future. In 2016 Labor councillors were elected to Camden council. Interestingly, in 2012 Liberal Party councillors ran the first time but they were crucified and only five of the nine councillors were elected. This time around four of the nine Liberal councillors were elected. To their credit, three Labor Party councillors were elected, yet some people are still saying they do not want the major parties represented on councils. Seven of the nine Liberal and Labor candidates were elected, which indicates to me that people want the major parties represented on councils. Camden council, a very good council that is fit for the future, now comprises Liberal, Labor and Independent councillors. They have their stoushes from time to time but they are working together for the community and they are getting things done. I have the utmost respect for the member for Wallsend, but I want to make two points about her motion which is in the following terms:

(1)Notes that only five Hunter Councils conducted elections on 10 September 2016.

(2)Notes as a consequence that there was uncertainty and inconvenience in the Hunter as residents were not sure if they would be fined for not voting, when in fact they did not need to vote.

(3)Calls on the Minister for Local Government to explain why there was such confusion with council voting across New South Wales.

Time expired.

The New South Wales Electoral Commission, which is responsible for council elections, was acutely aware that there might be voter confusion. I am sure that the majority of members who are present in the Chamber today were not members of Parliament in 2004. In 2004 the Labor Party amalgamated 22 councils with no consultation or money to support them. In contrast, this Government consulted the community and its dealings were open and transparent. At the time the Minister for Local Government issued a number of media releases urging people to enrol and to vote. The Electoral Commission's website contained a portal— []

Ms SONIA HORNERY (Wallsend) (13:13:19):

In reply: I thank those members representing the electorates of Terrigal, The Entrance, Oatley, Wyong and Camden for their contributions to debate on this important motion. I thank the member for Terrigal for his complimentary remarks but he did not mention that the Government took four years to decide whether or not to amalgamate councils. How did the Government get it so wrong? The member for Terrigal did not refer to the community concern about council amalgamations, which is why I moved this motion today. The member for Terrigal spoke about democracy but that was not evident in these council amalgamations, which caused voters a great deal of confusion. I hope that the Government has learnt its lesson and there is no confusion in future.

The member for The Entrance referred also to democracy and about the 81 councils that conducted elections last year. The Government has not yet indicated which councils will conduct elections this year, which is confusing for the community. I thank the member for Oatley for his reference to fax machines and for explaining how the Labor Party got it right. However, I disagree with the member for Oatley. This Government did not get it right when it amalgamated councils; it got it wrong. This Government failed. The member for Wyong, who spoke eloquently in debate, referred to the cost of the advertising campaign. The Government could have put those funds to better use. He said that in 2016 half a million voters failed to vote—something that this Government should take into account.

Voters are still confused. The member for Wyong hit the nail on the head when he said that this Government failed our community. We must ensure that we have democratic council elections but that is not what occurred. Communities were not told whether councils would or would not be amalgamated; they did not know what was going on. I should have provided the member for Camden with a copy of my motion as he did not seem to know what it was about. He said that this Government consulted the community and that its dealings were open and transparent, but that is not what occurred. I urge all members to support this important motion.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Bruce Notley-Smith):

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

The House divided.

Ayes36

Noes45

Majority9

Motion negatived.