City of Sydney Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading Speech

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY (Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional New South Wales, and Minister for Western New South Wales) (17:53:50):

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Hansard

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in .

Leave granted.

The City of Sydney Amendment Bill 2023 repeals the anti-democratic measures legislated by those opposite when they were in Government that confer an unfair weighting on the votes cast by non-residential electors in the City of Sydney over those cast by residential electors.

Not only are these measures indefensible on any democratic principles, but they have also placed an onerous and costly administrative burden on the City of Sydney to automatically enrol eligible electors and to ensure the accuracy of the data used for enrolments.

They have also put the NSW Electoral Commission in the difficult position of having to take enforcement action against the many enrolled non-residential electors who have failed to vote at elections for the City of Sydney, in some cases because they did not know they were enrolled and were required to vote.

This bill corrects this historic wrong. It will apply to the City of Sydney the same voting rules for non-residential electors that apply at all other council elections.

The bill also corrects another historical anomaly by abolishing the Central Sydney Traffic and Transport Committee. The establishment of that committee was opposed by the City of Sydney and is not supported by it, and the body has now become inoperative. Dissolving the committee will remove an unnecessary barrier to transport decision making in the Sydney CBD.

The City of Sydney has a unique non-residential elector franchise

Under the Local Government Act 1993, any person who lives in a local government area or who are non-resident owners, rate -paying lessees, or occupiers of rateable land in that area, are eligible to vote as non-residential electors at the election for their local council.

However, the voting rules for non-residential electors that apply in the City of Sydney are very different to the rules that apply in other local government areas.

Where, in other local government areas, non-residential electors are required to apply to be enrolled, in the City of Sydney, they are automatically enrolled whether they want to be or not.

The differences do not end there.

Under the City of Sydney's non-residential elector franchise, where there are more than two natural persons who are non-residential owners, ratepaying lessees or occupiers of land, up to two of those persons are to be enrolled. In other local government areas, only one of these people is eligible to be enrolled.

Where a corporation is an owner, lessee, or occupier of rateable land, two officers of the corporation are to be automatically enrolled (unless nominated by the corporation). In other local government areas, only one person, nominated by a corporation may be enrolled.

What does this mean in practice? Let's take the example of land in the City of Sydney that is owned by one corporation and leased to another who is a shopping centre operator and who contributes to the payment of rates under the lease, and licenses space in the shopping centre to store owners.

In that example, up to two people may be enrolled to vote on behalf of the landowner, another two on behalf of the lessee and two for each of the storeowners in the shopping centre. Potentially hundreds could be enrolled with respect to a single parcel of land.

Another unique attribute of the City of Sydney's non-residential elector franchise is that voting is compulsory for enrolled non-residential electors. In other local government areas enrolled non-residential electors are not required to vote.

Not only are non-residential electors in the City of Sydney denied any choice in whether to be enrolled, if they fail to vote, they will be fined.

Administration of the City of Sydney's non-residential elector franchise is costly and onerous

Under the City of Sydney Act, the unenviable task of administering this electoral behemoth falls to the Council's general manager.

The Act places responsibility on the general manager for keeping and maintaining a non-residential roll electoral information register and ensuring the information in it is accurate. The information kept in the register is used to create the non-residential elector rolls for elections for the City of Sydney.

This means that where there are two or more people who are eligible to be enrolled as non-residential electors, the general manager is obliged to determine which of those persons are to be enrolled based on the alphabetical order of their names.

It also means that the general manager of the City of Sydney is obliged under the legislation to ascertain the identity of eligible non-residential electors who live interstate or overseas so they may be enrolled even though they do not have access to the data necessary for them to do so.

Unsurprisingly, the City of Sydney has raised concerns about the logistical and operational challenges of maintaining the register and ensuring the information contained in it is accurate.

The City of Sydney spent $9.7 million to establish the register and it costs approximately $1 million per annum to maintain it. This is money that would be better invested in delivering services and infrastructure to the local community including business owners.

The current legislation has not achieved its policy objectives

Despite the vast cost and administrative complexity of the City of Sydney's non-residential elector franchise, it has failed to deliver its policy objectives.

While the current arrangements have seen an increase in the enrolment of non-residential electors in the City of Sydney, a significant number of non-residential electors enrolled under the expanded franchise are not exercising their right to vote at elections for the City of Sydney

At the 2021 City of Sydney election, 47,465 non-residential voters were enrolled to vote. However, of these, 18,501 were issued apparent failure to vote notices by the NSW Electoral Commission following that election. This represented 39 per cent of all non-residential electors for the area. By contrast, 21 per cent of residential electors for the City of Sydney were issued apparent failure to vote notices.

There are two possible reasons for this.

The first is that, because there is no provision for absent voting at local government elections, if non-residential electors for the City of Sydney failed to apply to vote by postal vote, there would have been no way for them to cast their vote if they lived in another part of the State or elsewhere.

The second is that many enrolled non-residential electors for the City of Sydney may not have known that they were enrolled to vote at the election for the City of Sydney and that they were obliged to vote.

Undoubtedly, many of these electors would have been surprised to learn that in addition to voting at the election for their local council in December 2021, they were also expected to vote at an election for another council in another part of the State.

Whatever the reasons so many enrolled non-residential electors failed to vote, the NSW Electoral Commission has had to go to the trouble and expense of enforcing the failure to vote provisions with respect to the 18,501 non-residential electors who failed to vote at the election for the City of Sydney in December 2021.

Each of those electors have also been put to the trouble of having to show cause to the Commission for why they should not be fined for failing to vote.

The measures contained in the bill

The measures contained in this bill will remove the uniquely anti -democratic, administratively complex, and costly rules for non-residential voting currently prescribed under the City of Sydney Act. They will do this by repealing the provisions that prescribe them and making several consequential amendments.

This will, in effect, see the City of Sydney becoming subject to the same rules governing voting by non-residential electors that apply in other local government areas in the State.

If passed, this bill will see the following outcomes:

A natural person who is a non-resident owner, ratepaying lessee or occupier of rateable land in the City of Sydney will be entitled to apply to be enrolled as a non-residential elector for the City of Sydney.

A corporation that is a non-resident owner, ratepaying lessee or occupier of rateable land in the City of Sydney will be entitled to nominate one person to be enrolled as a non-residential elector for the City of Sydney.

Where there are multiple non-resident owners, ratepaying lessees or occupiers of a parcel of rateable land, only one of those persons may be nominated for enrolment.

Where corporations or trustees own or are ratepaying lessees or occupiers of more than one parcel of land in the City of Sydney, or if joint or several non-resident owners, ratepaying lessees or occupiers own or are ratepaying lessees or occupiers of more than one parcel of land in the City of Sydney, they can only nominate one person to be enrolled as a non-residential elector for the City of Sydney in respect of one of those parcels.

A person may only be enrolled once to vote at elections for the City of Sydney in any capacity. If they are already eligible to be enrolled as a residential elector, they will not be eligible to be enrolled as a non-residential elector.

Like all other councils in the State, the general manager of the City of Sydney will be required to prepare non-residential elector rolls prior to each election that include the names of the persons who have applied at any time for the inclusion of their names in the roll, who on the closing date 40 days before election day are in the opinion of the general manager, qualified for inclusion in that roll.

It will not be compulsory for enrolled non-residential electors to vote at elections for the City of Sydney.

The bill will also abolish the Central Sydney Traffic and Transport Committee

This bill will also address another historical anomaly in the City of Sydney Act by abolishing the Central Sydney Traffic and Transport Committee.

That committee was established in 2012 to provide a mechanism for coordination between the New South Wales Government and the City of Sydney in the Sydney CBD.

The City of Sydney was strongly opposed to the establishment of the Committee and has requested its abolition on several occasions.

The City of Sydney was concerned that the Committee would delay decisions on important transport and traffic management issues in Central Sydney.

As a result, the City of Sydney has declined to support the Committee and it has not been able to be convened and is currently inoperative.

There are other governance arrangements in place with the City of Sydney on transport projects impacting the Sydney CBD and the Committee is no longer required.

Conclusion

It is important to emphasise that this bill is not about disenfranchising non-residential electors in the City of Sydney.

Eligible non-residential electors will still be able to apply to be included on the non-residential rolls and to exercise their right to vote at elections for the City of Sydney.

Importantly, this will be their choice. Non-residential electors will not be enrolled against their will and compelled to vote as is currently the case.

What this bill is about, is removing the current anti-democratic arrangements and putting non-residential electors in the City of Sydney on the same footing as their counterparts in other local government areas.

It is also about relieving the City of Sydney of the onerous and costly burden of administering the current unworkable, unwieldy non-residential elector franchise.

I commend the bill to the House.

Second Reading Debate

The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES (17:54:21):

I speak on behalf of the Opposition and represent the shadow Minister for Local Government, and the shadow Minister for Small Business, in the other place to oppose the City of Sydney Amendment Bill 2023. The bill proposes amendments to the Act to seek to abolish provisions that apply to elections for non-residential voters in the City of Sydney local government area, and also repeals all provisions relating to the traffic committee and its operations. The Government has described the current provisions under the Act as providing an unfair weighting on the votes cast by non-residential electors in the City of Sydney elections over those cast by residential electors. The bill undermines equal representation of ratepaying businesses that are also significant stakeholders in the City of Sydney. Instead of implementing measures that could streamline administrative processes and enhance democratic outcomes, the Government has chosen to eliminate business representation through this proposed legislation.

The City of Sydney Amendment (Elections) Bill 2014 passed under the previous Government. This bill seeks to repeal the amendments made as a result of the recommendations made by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters following a significant inquiry in 2012. In the recommendations it was suggested that the model used by the City of Melbourne be used by the City of Sydney, including deeming provisions and compulsory voting aspects for non-residential electors. Furthermore, it suggested considering this model for other city council areas with significant economic centres such as Newcastle, Wollongong and Parramatta. While the current Act aims to empower the Governor to extend this model by regulation, the former Government had no intention, at the time of implementing it, for other council areas without first learning from the City of Sydney's experience.

Contrary to claims made by the Government in the other place, no person can vote in council elections multiple times. There are set criteria for non-residential electors. Each elector contributes to the City of Sydney's operations through rates and should not be burdened by additional administrative hurdles. Central to Sydney are our small businesses and major corporations that employ thousands, contribute substantial tax revenue and play a significant role in the State and national economies. It is vitally important that we ensure that they have true representation and are not burdened by these changes. We oppose the bill.

Dr AMANDA COHN (17:57:17):

The Greens support the City of Sydney Amendment Bill 2023, which is a small but important step towards restoring democracy to local government in New South Wales. The bill will treat local government elections in the City of Sydney in the same way as every other local government area in New South Wales, as they should be treated. It was completely egregious that, in 2014, the provision was brought in to give non-residential electors in the City of Sydney two votes and to automatically enrol non-residential electors. It is fundamentally anti-democratic for non-resident owners to carry more weight in elections than residents.

In the Legislative Assembly, my colleagues the member for Balmain and the member for Newtown, whose electorates include areas in the City of Sydney, have aptly questioned the motives for why the double business vote in the City of Sydney was ever brought in. It was widely accused at the time of being a politically motivated attack to oust Clover Moore as Lord Mayor of Sydney and has been described as a "business gerrymander". Of course, it was not actually successful in ousting Clover Moore, and it is astonishing that it has taken nearly 10 years for this anti-democratic mess to be unpicked.

All four members of the Legislative Assembly who represent areas that overlap with the City of Sydney voted in support of the bill before us today. Beside its implications for local democracy, the 2014 City of Sydney amendments cost $9.7 million to establish and another approximately $9 million to maintain. For anyone who lives, works or visits the City of Sydney, it is obvious that these funds would be better used on public infrastructure or events. It is important to note, in supporting this bill, that its passage will certainly not fix the many barriers to effective democracy in local government in this State. The bill brings the City of Sydney elections into line with every other local government area in New South Wales, where non-resident electors are still granted one vote.

As my predecessors have said in this Parliament, The Greens do not believe that corporations should ever be given a vote—even a single vote. Democracy is for people and people alone. For any person to be granted an additional vote because of their wealth, property or power is anti-democratic, and that is still taking place across New South Wales. The Queensland Parliament voted to abolish the non-resident franchise in 1920 based on the principle of "one adult, one vote". At that time, it was argued that Australia had led the world in its adoption of that principle. How embarrassing that more than 100 years later we do not have "one individual, one vote" in local government in New South Wales.

Councils should reflect the diversity of the communities that they represent. We have a huge problem with the diversity of people who stand for election at all levels of government, particularly in local government. There are a variety of reasons driving that, including that councillors in New South Wales are paid far less than the median wage. Many New South Wales residents would be surprised to learn that the maximum salary for a metropolitan councillor is $43,440, and for a rural councillor it is only $13,030. Low and inequitable pay is a deterrent to the potential councillors who are the kinds of people we need more of in rooms where decisions are made.

Being an effective local government representative is not just about turning up to meetings—a good councillor is listening to and representing their community every day. It is a huge commitment. If one cannot live on a councillor's allowance, the role only attracts people who are retired or have passive income sources. In a detailed submission to the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal, Associate Professor Jakimow of the Australian National University argued that not only does current remuneration for councillors inadequately reflect the hours and complexity of their work, but also that low remuneration is also a barrier to participation and diversity and places an unacceptable burden on councillors and their families.

We should be hearing from a greater diversity of voices in elections. The Greens believe that 16- and 17‑year‑olds should have the option to vote. These are young people who are able to work, pay taxes and drive, who can be criminally charged and go to prison, and who can consent to their own medical treatment as adults—but who do not have a say at the ballot box. The voting age has been lowered to 16 in countries like Austria, Argentina, Brazil, Scotland and Wales, and New Zealand, Canada and Germany are following suit. It is well overdue for young people in New South Wales to have a real say in decisions that impact them the most.

There are extraordinary issues with the Office of Local Government that are preventing effective local democracy. Processes for investigating code of conduct complaints against councillors are failing to pick up criminally corrupt conduct relating to huge development proposals—meanwhile censoring the social media posts of elected representatives participating in public debate. The forced amalgamation of councils by the previous Government in 2016 has led to a number of communities effectively losing their say in the decisions that affect them. The increasing practice of splitting local government areas into small wards with a small number of representatives reduces the diversity of views in the council chamber. The Greens have long championed proportional representation.

There is work to do to improve the disclosure of gifts, donations and conflicts of interest by local government councillors and to reduce the toxic influence of property developers to ensure that decisions are only being made in the best interests of communities. Having said all that, The Greens appreciate the urgency of this bill passing in time to take effect for the local government election scheduled for September 2024. For that reason, we are not seeking to broaden the bill today to make the much-needed improvements to local democracy across the State. I acknowledge the constructive work of City of Sydney councillors Sylvie Ellsmore and Linda Scott which has led to the bill that we are considering today. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. JACQUI MUNRO (18:03:05):

I oppose the City of Sydney Amendment Bill 2023. The reality is that the City of Sydney council is not like any other. Sydney is the premier city in Australia. The revenue and the GDP activity it generates represents almost a quarter of the entire State. It is not like any other place in New South Wales and should be respected for what it is: not just a home, but also a place for business. Over one million people come into the city every day to work—although that figure might have changed slightly since COVID. But certainly hundreds of thousands of people come into the city every day who are not residents. They come here to generate economic activity through their work. They contribute to the economy and to the community.

We know that 72 per cent of the total operating income of the budget of the City of Sydney is generated through business rates. That is a huge amount. Residential rates make up 14 per cent of that income. When we talk about enfranchisement and the use and value of a city, we know that, in this case, the City of Sydney is different. This is not about Clover. It is clearly not about Clover because she has been very successful in her elections for the past decade. I do not think we are debating that. There is no doubt that she has been incredibly successful over many years. To be fair, she is more served by her people. She has a bigger staff at this point in time than the Premier, I believe, since he cannot staff his office properly. Clover Moore has managed to absolutely entrench herself, there is no doubt about that.

As has been mentioned, even the way that the City of Sydney council offices work means that the staff members of councillors are paid more—they are paid at a full time salary—than the councillors themselves. It is hard to understand why one would increase the bureaucracy in that way rather than better remunerating the councillors themselves, but I am sure there is some political strategy behind that. To come back to the point, what we want is to ensure that the people using, contributing to and developing the city—the small businesses, the big businesses, the people who employ individuals—are given a say in the future of the city.

When it comes down to it, a CBD is not just based on its residents. It is based on the life, activity and vibrancy—whether it is in Oxford Street, or King Street in Newtown, or in Glebe or Ultimo or Kings Cross. There are so many amazing parts of this city that are made lively because of the great work that small businesses and small business people are able to do in contributing to their communities. The communities in the City of Sydney are not just made of their residents; they are made of their businesspeople as well. That is so important to recognise and value. That is why this bill is so problematic, because it seeks to undermine part of the heart and the culture and the vibrancy of the City of Sydney.

I strongly endorse the comments of my Coalition colleagues. I believe there is a much better way. It was a report from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters under the previous Government that led to the changes in 2014. There were particular recommendations—recommendation 14 and recommendation 15—that referred to the permanency of the non-resident rolls, and that the model that the City of Sydney could implement would be based on the enrolment model used by the City of Melbourne because of its success. That amendment was not introduced without context. It was introduced because the former Government engaged with many stakeholders—unlike this Government's complete lack of engagement with any stakeholders around this bill—and those changes were implemented to enfranchise some of the most hardworking, valuable people in the city, whether they were residents or other types of ratepayers. I absolutely oppose the bill and I urge the Government to do the same.

The Hon. AILEEN MacDONALD (18:08:10):

Before I speak to the City of Sydney Amendment Bill 2023, I advise the House that I have an interest in common with the general public. I get to vote in two local government elections: I vote in my hometown of Guyra, but as I have an interest in a studio in the Sydney CBD, I get to vote in the City of Sydney local government elections as well. Whilst it is not a pecuniary interest or unique to my circumstances, I feel compelled to make that declaration before the House. I add my voice to those opposing the City of Sydney Amendment Bill 2023.

Most people hate attending the polling booth, but I must be crazy because I like to have a say in what happens in my local town in country New South Wales. But I also like to have a say in the City of Sydney and who represents my interests on that council. After all, I spend a great deal of time in Sydney and want to see a thriving, liveable city. Why should businesses have a say? It is because they contribute so much to the City of Sydney—employment, hospitality, entertainment, retail, beauty, fashion, investment in infrastructure and the list goes on.

In the 30 June 2022 financial statements of the total ordinary rates of just over $312 million, business rates make up over $232 million of the revenue. It makes no sense that those opposite would deny businesses, which are the heart and soul of a thriving global city like Sydney, a say in how that city is run. Businesses should be motivated and empowered to participate in having a say, not disenfranchised because the administrative burden on council makes it all too hard to manage. It is not disenfranchising the residents of Sydney to give the businesses a vote, but it provides a balance between residential and commercial interests so that we have a thriving, liveable and prosperous city.

The proponents of the bill claim that businesses can continue to enrol and to vote in local government elections, but the reality is that if they wanted the business owners to have the ability to vote then they would not be seeking to amend the Act. They well know that if the automatic enrolment is removed then the administrative burden is placed on businesses to enrol and then re-enrol every election cycle. Whilst we are not going to war on that except to trade insults across the table, the adage "No taxation without representation" rings a bell. An understanding of the essential contributions that business makes to the City of Sydney should make the Government think twice before choosing to restrict businesses' ability to pass judgement on the very council whose decisions most directly impact them.

The Hon. CHRIS RATH (18:11:19):

I contribute briefly to debate on the City of Sydney Amendment Bill 2023. Since we are disclosing interests, I am also the owner of a property in the City of Sydney—in Elizabeth Bay, the part of the City of Sydney that everyone thinks is in Woollahra but is just inside Sydney. I am indeed a ratepayer and a voter in the City of Sydney. The Hon. Jacqui Munro said correctly that the City of Sydney is not like any other council in the State in that so many of us feel like we have a stake in the City of Sydney. We work here, we visit, and even people who do not live here and do not get a vote as a resident feel like they have a stake in the City of Sydney.

I have worked in this city for a long time—since I was a very junior staffer to Scot Macdonald, a member of this place, in this building back in 2011. I have worked in various other capacities as well, on O'Connell Street, George Street and then most recently at Insurance Australia Group [IAG] in Darling Park. In the 6½ years that I worked at IAG, thousands of people worked at Darling Park Tower 2. I think about 2,000 to 3,000 people worked at IAG in the CBD of Sydney. Every day they would come into their place of work and spend money in the cafes and restaurants. They would get the train or the bus in from where they lived and contribute to the economy. They felt and I felt like we had a stake in this city.

It is a global city, probably Australia's only global city, and we all feel like we have a level of ownership or an interest in the success of this city. In particular, I do not think it is unreasonable for a company like the one I used to work for, with thousands of people employed in the city, to get two votes on the non-residential roll. With the millions of dollars that they pay in wages and the millions of dollars in rates and payroll tax, I do not think it is unreasonable to preserve the rights of companies like IAG or even small and medium-sized enterprises that might only employ 10 or 20 people—at a cafe, for instance—on the non-residential roll.

The City of Sydney accounts for one-quarter of the State's gross State product. It is not like any other council because of the huge economic contribution that the city makes—8 per cent of the national GDP. Of the revenue that comes to the City of Sydney, 70 per cent comes from businesses and non‑residential ratepayers, so there is this element of "No taxation without representation". I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest that businesses and non-residents paying huge amounts of money—70 per cent, in fact, of the revenue going into the coffers at Town Hall—should be given a stake in the success of the city. For those reasons, we should preserve the non-residential roll. We all have a stake in the success of the City of Sydney, and the bill should be opposed for the reasons that I have outlined.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE (18:15:38):

I had not planned on speaking in this debate until I heard the falsehoods that were being propagated. I was a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters review into the matter. I was there when the Victorians outlined it, and I will tell the House a couple of things. The first thing is that the City of Sydney Amendment Bill 2023 is not about abolishing the non-residential roll; it is about abolishing the "Get Clover" legislation, which is the only reason it was established. That was the whole debate back then. It was clearly about the then Liberal-Nationals Government, through its numbers on the joint standing committee, proposing precisely that. Members should go back and have a look at the recommendations, because not only did it speak about doing this in the City of Sydney but it also proposed to do it in other large cities such as Parramatta. Members of the Opposition are nodding and saying, "Yes, we should do that in Parramatta, Newcastle and other major cities."

The people who strenuously disliked it, of course, were those whose businesses were obliged to be conscripted. That is what it was really all about: Businesses had no choice. They have always had the opportunity to register on the non-residential roll, but the Act obliged the City of Sydney to identify businesses, and a special unit had to be set up that asked those businesses to nominate someone who would vote. If they did not then the City of Sydney was obliged by the legislation to nominate someone, even if it was against the wishes of the business. Talk about conscripting democracy—it was the most outrageous thing that I had ever seen occur.

It was born of an attack on an elected member to try to take over the City of Sydney council, not born of some sort of view about democracy. It was not born of giving business a say because business already had a say, as it does now in every other council, through the non-residential roll. It was purely perverse politics, forced on a council and obliging it to conscript people to vote against their will. They are the ones who came to us and said, "We don't want to be part of this. We don't want to be told that we have to vote, and for you then to nominate someone against our wishes. If we wish to vote, we will go and register." That is the reasonable way of doing things. All the falsehoods that are being discussed and promoted—that this was about democracy; that this was about business—are just garbage. Members should go back and look at the debates at the time. Look at what this legislation was actually all about. It was not about democracy at all; it was about a rort.

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY (Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional New South Wales, and Minister for Western New South Wales) (18:19:05):

In reply: I commend the bill to the House.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Emma Hurst):

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

Motion agreed to.

Third Reading

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY:

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

‍