I contribute to the debate on the Local Government Amendment (Elections) Bill 2025. Like the member for Lane Cove, I strongly support the bill, which I am sure comes as no surprise to any member. My thoughts on this are public and well documented. I am pleased that the Government and the Minister for Local Government are making these changes to ensure the utmost confidence in how our local councillors are elected, following widespread concerns about the use of private providers in the 2024 local government elections. If the bill is enacted, all 128 local councils in the State will be required to use the NSW Electoral Commission to administer their elections. It will do so by omitting section 296AA to section 296B of the Local Government Act 1993, which provide for an election, poll or constitutional referendum of a council to be administered by either the Electoral Commissioner or an electoral services provider engaged by the council.

My electorate is quite unique in that it is one of only two in the State that has contained within it two council areas that outsourced the running of their 2024 elections to a private provider, those two councils being Liverpool City Council and Fairfield City Council. When I think back to the 2024 local government elections, the word omnishambles comes to mind. The chaos that occurred with the Liverpool council in particular would make for a fantastic storyline in an episode of The Thick of It—or Utopia, to use a reference closer to home. In fact, a storyline that would be in competition with those is the unfortunate omnishambles of the Liberals paperwork being submitted to the Electoral Commission on time. The member for Lane Cove in his contribution commented that administratively streamlining the process makes it easier. I am in absolute agreement with that. Perhaps that would ensure for the Liberal Party that the 2024 situation would not arise again.

However, in Liverpool the issues started well before election day. The locations of early voting booths were one of the first clear examples of how poorly last year's election was managed. It is well known that pre‑polling usually occurs at 112 Moore Street in the Liverpool CBD, which is a central and convenient location that locals have used for many years. For the 2024 Liverpool City Council elections, however, that venue was inexplicably moved to a site on Scott Street. The Moore Street location is only a short walk from my electorate office. In the week of early voting, I was visited several times a day by confused constituents who simply did not know where to go to vote. My staff had to draw a map for some people to access the early voting centre. There was minimal communication, no clear signage and no guidance provided to the public about that change. What should have been a straightforward process became a source of frustration and confusion.

Issues with voting booths continued through to election day. Multiple booths that had been publicised by council as available were suddenly withdrawn as voting locations just before polling day. One of these was Cecil Hills High School, located at the western end of my electorate. Anyone familiar with the area knows that it is a significant booth, servicing not just a large number of residents from Cecil Hills but also the majority of voters from the neighbouring suburb of Elizabeth Hills. Closing the booth at short notice left thousands of voters without the clear, accessible location that they expected. Due to the closure of that large booth at short notice, multiple residents showed up to Cecil Hills High School expecting to cast their ballot, only to be told they would need to vote at the nearby public school.

Cecil Hills Public School usually has a booth at elections, though it is noticeably smaller because it is not as centrally located and is served by a smaller residential street rather than main roads. While the public school normally accommodates around 800 voters, in 2024 it processed an extraordinary 3,608 ballots. That caused severe congestion on the surrounding residential streets, long queues that stretched well beyond the school gates and down the street, and frustration for residents who had planned their day around a simple trip to vote. Worse still, the booth eventually ran out of ballot papers in the afternoon. On election day, in one of the fastest growing parts of Sydney, a polling place ran out of ballot papers. Residents were forced to drive to neighbouring suburbs in order to vote before the polls closed. For many, that meant additional travel, stress and, in some cases, missing out on the opportunity to participate in the democratic process altogether, which then created the issue of fines.

In the weeks after the election, my electorate office received a number of inquiries from voters who had unfortunately, through no fault of their own, missed out on casting their ballot and were subsequently fined. Long wait times were reported across the electorate of Liverpool. A survey I put out to the local community following the election and that omnishambles found that many residents reported waiting for unacceptably long periods to fill out their ballot. For many, that meant losing a large portion of their Saturday simply trying to exercise their democratic right. It should not be that difficult. It is certainly not that difficult when the Electoral Commission is managing the process. The problems extended beyond logistics. Respondents to my survey described poll workers who appeared untrained or unprepared. One voter said that they had to guide others on where to place their ballots because there was no signage and no instruction. Another noted that election staff wore no badges, bibs or any identifying features to make themselves known to voters. As one respondent to my survey summed up very bluntly, "This was the worst run election I have ever seen."

It was not only residents who voted early or those who voted on election day who reported a litany of concerns and issues; residents who rely on postal voting also reported confusion and chaos. Some who applied for a postal vote never received a confirmation as to whether their application had been received or processed, leaving them wondering whether they needed to attend a polling place on the day. Others applied for a postal vote and never received a confirmation or a postal vote. That is concerning not only from a process point of view but also in terms of access. As a community, we expect that the balance to compulsory voting is that every accommodation will be made to enhance people's access to cast their ballot, regardless of limitation. Unfortunately, that reasonable expectation can only be met if the process is conducted by those capable of delivering on it. Liverpool's experience in 2024 showed that the private provider was not capable—not even close.

The administration of Liverpool City Council's elections in 2024 begs the question: Why on earth would any council choose this, especially when a reputable provider like the Electoral Commission is available? The decision by Liverpool City Council to contract a private provider for the 2024 local government elections was made at an ordinary meeting on 1 March 2023. That decision was undertaken without any community consultation and was moved in confidential session, citing "commercial in confidence". The effect was that a significant decision about the administration of the council's election was made without the issuing of a public report or any feedback from the community on the proposal.

Anecdotally, it is my observation that members of the community were not aware that the local government election could be administered by a private provider. Indeed, several respondents to my survey were baffled that it was ever somehow allowed. The truth is that when other councils dealt with the question, they did so openly and transparently. But Liverpool did not. A similar item brought before Penrith City Council, where it was resolved to use the Electoral Commission over the private provider, was made in open session, with a public report outlining costs and risks associated with different options.

The main reason councils may choose to contract a private election provider would be cost. However, that public report provided to Penrith City Council found the private provider, at almost $1.5 million, was set to cost more than the Electoral Commission, which gave a quote at under $1.3 million. Even on that front, it seems clear that there are no savings delivered to councils by contracting a private provider. When Liverpool City Council made its decision, it did not release any comparable cost analysis. There was no explanation to the community, no discussion of risks and no justification for why the Electoral Commission was being bypassed. The decision was made quickly, quietly and without transparency. [Extension of time]

I thank everyone who completed my survey following the local government elections in 2024. In advance of the bill being debated, I contacted some of those people to discuss the concerns that were going to be addressed and the integrity of our elections. The feedback I received from them was that the bill is a much-needed follow‑up step to make sure election processes are consistent across council areas. Publicly run election agencies, including the NSW Electoral Commission, enjoy the widespread confidence of those in my community and, indeed, across our country. Their capacity to deliver elections and election-related information at scale and to reach the broadest possible cross-section of our community, regardless of disability status, language or a whole range of other complicating barriers to accessing our democratic system, is unmatched by any private provider.

In 2023 the Labor Party was elected because the people of New South Wales were tired of seeing essential public functions handed over to private companies. They were tired of the endless privatisation agenda of the previous Government. The bill presents a rare and important opportunity to reverse that trend and to take something that should never have been privatised and return it to public hands. Some have framed the bill as a personal attack or affront. I invite them to speak with the residents I did and to put the best interests of our community at the heart of decisions, as the Minns Labor Government is doing. Our democratic process is sacrosanct. It is not a commodity to be bought and sold. The right to vote and the systems that protect that right must remain in public stewardship. That includes accessing that right regardless of limitations and circumstances. That is why I am proud to support the bill. I commend the bill to the House.