Editor’s note: Michael Andjelkovic, the author of this opinion piece, is the petitioner behind the NSW Parliamentary ePetition discussed in this article. He is also associated with Local Pulse Press and the Local Pulse radio programme. This article is published as opinion on a matter of public interest.
A growing concern in New South Wales local government elections is the ability of non-residents and non-ratepayers to stand as candidates through a little-known provision in the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW). While the legislation was originally designed to ensure fair representation of business interests, critics argue it has created a loophole that undermines transparency, accountability, and community trust.
At the heart of the issue is how the Act defines eligibility. Individuals may nominate as candidates not only if they are residents or ratepayers in a council area, but also if they are listed as a nominee of a corporation that owns or occupies rateable land. The problem, petitioners argue, is that these nominees do not need to have any genuine connection to the business they represent, or to the local community itself.
In practice, this means a person with no real ties to a local government area can still run for office and potentially influence decisions that directly affect residents.
This concern is not new. In 2019, Local Government NSW formally adopted a policy position calling for reform. The organisation proposed that candidates should be required to be either residents or ratepayers in the area they seek to represent. The aim was to restore a basic principle of local democracy: that those making decisions about a community should have a direct stake in it.
Transparency is another key issue. Currently, voters are not readily informed whether candidates are residents, ratepayers, or nominees of a business. This information may technically be available, but it is not presented clearly and accessibly to voters as part of the ordinary election process. For many voters, this lack of accessible information limits their ability to make fully informed choices at the ballot box.
Critics argue that this gap opens the door to strategic or even opportunistic candidacies. For example, external groups or individuals could leverage business nominations to gain influence in councils where they otherwise have no standing. This raises broader questions about whose interests are being represented in local government: those of the community, or those of outside actors with indirect or unclear connections.
The petition now before the Legislative Assembly calls for several key reforms. First, it urges the government to close the legislative loophole that allows loosely defined nominees to stand as candidates. Second, it seeks to tighten eligibility requirements so that candidates must be either residents or legitimate ratepayers. Finally, it proposes that any nominee of a business must have a verifiable and meaningful association with that entity, such as being an owner, director, secretary, or employee.
These proposed changes are not about excluding business voices from local government. Businesses play a vital role in local economies and should continue to have representation. Rather, the goal is to ensure that such representation is genuine, transparent, and accountable.
Ultimately, the integrity of local government depends on public confidence. When voters believe that candidates may not have a real connection to their community, that confidence is eroded. Closing this loophole would be a step toward strengthening democratic legitimacy and ensuring that local councils remain truly local in both representation and responsibility.
As the debate continues, the question for lawmakers is clear: should the rules allow outsiders to shape local decisions, or should candidacy be grounded in genuine community ties?
Sources: NSW Parliament; Local Government Act 1993 (NSW); Local Government NSW.
