I make a contribution to debate on the City of Sydney Amendment Bill 2023 and indicate my support for the bill. The purpose of the bill is to remove the current rules governing non-residential electors voting in the City of Sydney. The proposed changes in the bill will ensure that the same rules apply to residents in the City of Sydney as apply to residents in other local government areas [LGAs] across metropolitan Sydney. The bill will return fairness and democracy to the City of Sydney by removing the rules that favour the votes of businesses over residents in local government elections.
The sections of the City of Sydney Act 1988 the bill seeks to remove came about in 2014. They required the City of Sydney to automatically enrol non-residential electors who presumably lived in other LGAs. Eligible businesses were also given two votes in council elections compared to one for each resident. As a result, businesses that own, lease or occupy rateable land in the City of Sydney can currently nominate two people to vote on their behalf in council elections. That is transparently and fundamentally undemocratic. Reflecting on the campaign that occurred almost 10 years ago when the Act was amended, it is reminiscent of some of the more egregious attempts by Republican politicians in the United States to enact undemocratic and voter disenfranchisement initiatives, like gerrymandering and voter suppression laws.
While I am on the topic of gerrymandering, it seems to be a pattern of the former Government to enact laws at the local government level that tried to undemocratically tilt things in favour of their side of politics. I am reminded of the Fit for the Future reforms when a number of councils were merged against their will rather than giving the people of those LGAs a choice. I recall that the new borders for the City of Parramatta were an attempt to ensure that there was a conservative leadership on the City of Parramatta Council. Much like the reforms in 2014, they failed, and the wonderful member for Parramatta Donna Davis was mayor for a couple of terms in Parramatta. Like those reforms, the City of Sydney reforms failed as well. The shadow Minister for Local Government made the argument that the 2014 reform was about increasing the turnout after a drop in the number of votes. I find that hard to believe. I note that the member for Kiama is in the Chamber and he has introduced a private member's bill which effectively seeks to disenfranchise voters through voter ID laws.
Mr Paul Scully: Which he opposed previously.
Mr NATHAN HAGARTY: Exactly. We need to make our minds up. Are we trying to suppress the vote or are we trying to get the vote up? Consistency is not one of the Coalition's strong suits. The amendment understandably led to an increased enrolment of non-residential electors. However given the number of businesses with a registered address in the CBD, a significant number of non-residential electors enrolled were not exercising their right to vote. In the previous local government elections, 39 per cent of non-residential electors were issued with failure to vote notices. That is quite a decent money earner for the Electoral Commission, but it shows that the reform failed to work.
Mr NATHAN HAGARTY: Unlike other LGAs, in the City of Sydney enrolled non-residential electors are required to vote at council elections, therefore requiring administration and oversight. That cost the City of Sydney ratepayers $9.7 million to establish as well as $1 million a year to maintain. As someone who still sits on a council, I know every dollar is vital. It is sad to see money being removed from frontline services like fixing potholes, cutting grass and delivering services to the community. Seeing that money each year effectively going to a terrible reform is costing the people of the City of Sydney. It has also resulted in an increase of fines issued by the Electoral Commission, and that is for no good reason. The 2014 amendment to the City of Sydney Act was a blatant and unashamed attempt by the former Government to promote a pro-business vote in the City of Sydney. It undermined a fundamental principal of modern and free democracies, one vote—help me out, what was it?
Mr NATHAN HAGARTY: It undermined a fundamental principal of modern and free democracies. For that reason, the Minns Labor Government is stepping in to change that. The amendments in the bill will not disenfranchise non‑residential electors. While eligible non-residential electors will no longer be automatically enrolled, they can continue to apply to be enrolled on the non-residential roll if they choose to do so. That will put the City of Sydney in line with all the other local government areas in New South Wales.
Ms Karen McKeown: As it should be.
Mr NATHAN HAGARTY: As it should be. I thank the member for Penrith, who is a big supporter of democracy and fairness for all local government areas across the State. While I am speaking about local government areas, I note that earlier the president of Local Government NSW, Darriea Turley, and the new CEO of Local Government NSW, David Reynolds, were in the gallery. I welcome them. Unfortunately they did not get to see my fabulous contribution to the debate on the bill, but I will cut a video and send it to them.
Mr Paul Scully: I am sure they are watching on the internet.
Mr NATHAN HAGARTY: I am sure they are watching on the internet; that is right. They are big supporters of local government across the State, whether it is the City of Sydney, other metropolitan councils or rural and regional councils. I am proud to sit on the board of the fabulous peak body that is Local Government NSW. It does amazing work and has worked so much better since the member for Kiama is no longer on it.
Ms Karen McKeown: And the member for Oatley.
Mr NATHAN HAGARTY: And the member for Oatley. In conclusion, the changes the Government is seeking will make the preparation of non-residential elector rolls more convenient and serviceable, relieving the City of Sydney of a significant administrative burden. It will deliver cost savings for the City of Sydney that can be redirected towards essential services for the local community, like libraries—
Mr Alex Greenwich: Swimming pools.
Mr NATHAN HAGARTY: Swimming pools, active transport corridors, bike paths—
Ms Kobi Shetty: Cycleways.
Mr NATHAN HAGARTY: Cycleways. Alan Jones loves a good cycleway. In essence, the bill will return the City of Sydney to a balanced system. Citizens should have a fair voice in decision-making, and the amendments in the bill will return the City of Sydney to a fairer and more democratic local government area. I commend the bill to the House.
