Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, $860,537,000

Administered Items for the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, $9,208,000

Membership:

Mr Williams substituted for Mr Bell.

Mr Pisoni substituted for Mr Pederick.

Minister:

Hon. G.G. Brock, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Local Government.

Departmental Advisers:

Ms A. Hart, Manager, Office of Local Government.

Mr D. Hogben, General Manager, Planning and Transport Policy, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

Mr B. Seidel, Chief Finance Officer, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

The CHAIR: Welcome back, minister, in your capacity as Minister for Local Government, everyone's favourite level of government. I declare the proposed payments open for examination. I refer members to Agency Statements, Volume 3, and I invite the minister now to introduce his advisers and then proceed with an opening statement if he wishes.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Thank you, Mr Chair. It is nice to be back after a break. If I can, I will get Alex Hart, Manager, Office of Local Government, to introduce the people at the front counter.

Ms HART: Thank you, minister. My name is Alex Hart. I am the Manager of the Office of Local Government. To my left, I have Mr Ben Seidel, who is the Chief Finance Officer, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure and Mr Don Hogben, General Manager, Planning and Transport Policy from the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

The CHAIR: Do you have an opening statement, minister?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Thank you. The Office of Local Government (OLG) is largely a policy unit that sits within the Planning and Transport Policy Division of the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure. OLG provides advice to the Minister for Local Government on the constitution and operations of the local government system, including the legislative framework that governs councils; the relationship between the state government and councils and bodies such as the Local Government Association (LGA); whole of government policy and legislation as they affect local government; and the statutory authorities that are responsible to the Minister for Local Government, the Local Government Grants Commission and the Outback Communities Authority.

During 2016-17, the state government continued to invest in projects that will drive jobs growth and economic development, particularly in our regions. The state-local government infrastructure partnership is an innovative mechanism that was developed through the Premier's State/Local Government Forum in order to encourage council investment in infrastructure and jobs.

The state government is committing $30 million over 10 years to support councils to accelerate spending on local community infrastructure projects. These projects will make a real difference to local communities across the whole of the state. This funding will allow councils to bring forward their investment in infrastructure, deliver better facilities and services to their communities and provide job opportunities.

Financial incentives will include state government funding of 20 per cent towards the cost of these infrastructure projects, with councils providing the remaining 80 per cent through their own reserves or borrowings. The Local Government Finance Authority (LGFA) has joined the partnership by providing finance for any council borrowings necessary to fully fund projects at an interest rate that is, on average, 0.5 percentage points below their usual lending rates.

I am pleased to note strong support for the partnership across South Australian councils. Thirty-seven projects, with a total value of almost $168 million, will proceed this calendar year. These projects would not have proceeded for at least two years without the support offered by this partnership.

The projects, ranging from road and footpath upgrades through to innovative energy solutions, will translate into jobs in our suburbs and regions, and revitalise community infrastructure across the state. I was also pleased to announce the continuation of the Community Wastewater Management Scheme (CWMS) program for another 10 years, at a cost of more than $47 million.

Since the 1970s, the state government has supported councils to provide proper wastewater management services in communities that are not serviced by SA Water. Over the decades, this support has enabled councils to tackle public and environmental health issues in their areas and to provide the basic infrastructure that is necessary to underpin growth and development.

The agreement that has been in place for the last decade has delivered real benefits for communities. It is managed well and the subsidy arrangements are very cost effective. More than $38 million of state funding, plus $20 million from local communities, has connected more than 3,000 properties to modern wastewater facilities across regional South Australia over the past 10 years.

This is critical infrastructure for regional South Australia and an investment needed by councils that have felt the impact of the commonwealth government's three-year freeze in indexation on the financial assistance grants and the cessation of the supplementary local roads funding program announced in the 2014-15 federal budget. This resulted in lost revenue for South Australian councils in the order of $92 million. I am pleased to note that the 2017-18 federal budget included the return of the indexation of financial assistance grants and the reinstatement of the supplementary local roads program.

While on the theme of regional South Australia, the Outback Communities Authority assumed responsibility for the provision of municipal services in Leigh Creek from 1 January 2017. This followed an announcement by the government in May 2016 that $18 million will be provided over five years to support the future management of the Leigh Creek township. I am confident that the commitment the government has made to the ongoing support and management of Leigh Creek will enable not only the town but the entire Northern Flinders community to realise an economically sustainable future.

In continuance of my commitment to review and improve the local government legislative framework, a number of legislative matters were progressed during 2016-17. The Local Government (General) Variation Regulations 2016, under the Local Government Act, were made on 24 November 2016. These regulations clarify the application of conflict of interest provisions, provide required elements of informal gatherings policies and update several administrative matters.

Work is also continuing on the review of the codes of conduct for council members and council employees to ensure that they are working as well as they should be. Both the Ombudsman and the Independent Commissioner against Corruption have provided detailed comments on this extensive review, which the Office of Local Government has been working through.

In conclusion, I look forward to building on the constructive relationship with local government by progressing matters of mutual interest and enhancing intergovernmental cooperation. I commend these initiatives to the committee.

The CHAIR: Thank you, minister. Member for Unley, do you have an opening statement at all?

Mr PISONI: No, thank you, Mr Chair.

The CHAIR: Questions? Member for MacKillop.

Mr WILLIAMS: If I may start, I will read in the omnibus questions for both the Minister for Regional Development and Minister for Local Government:

1. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors above $10,000 in 2016-17 for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, listing the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier, cost, work undertaken and method of appointment?

2. In financial year 2016-17 for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, what underspending on projects and programs (1) was and (2) was not approved by cabinet for carryover expenditure in 2017-18?

3. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, please provide a breakdown of attraction, retention and performance allowances, as well as non-salary benefits, paid to public servants and contractors in the years 2015-16 and 2016-17.

4. For each agency for which the minister has responsibility:

(a) How many FTEs were employed to provide communication and promotion activities in 2016-17 and what was their employment expense?

(b) How many FTEs are budgeted to provide communication and promotion activities in 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, and what is their estimated employment expense?

(c) The total cost of government-paid advertising, including campaigns, across all mediums, in 2016-17, and budgeted cost for 2017-18.

5. For each agency for which the minister has responsibility:

(a) What was the cost of electricity in 2016-17?

(b) What is the budgeted cost of electricity in 2017-18?

(c) What is the provisioned cost of electricity in 2018-19, 2019-20 and, 2020-21?

6. For each grant program or fund the minister is responsible for please provide the following information for the 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 financial years:

(a) Balance of the grant program or fund;

(b) Budgeted (or actual) expenditure from the program or fund;

(c) Budgeted (or actual) payments into the program or fund;

(d) Carryovers into or from the program or fund; and

(e) Details, including the value and beneficiary, of any commitments already made to be funded from the program or fund.

Mr PISONI: If I can take you to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 86. One of your targets there is, 'Finalise the distribution of funding to councils to support local employment and infrastructure development'. Are you able to advise what input your department had on the Fund My Neighbourhood program that was announced in the budget for local government?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Fund My Neighbourhood was formulated through the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and I ask that the member direct that question to the relevant minister.

Mr PISONI: I asked what input your department had in the development of that policy or fund?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am advised the Office of Local Government had some involvement and has some information, but that the program was developed by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and then went to cabinet.

Mr PISONI: What was the advice that your department gave to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Sorry, I will clarify that. The Office of Local Government was given advice after it was formulated by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr PISONI: What advice was it given?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I will ask Alex Hart to give the member the full explanation on that.

Ms HART: Yes, we have received some advice from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, which has been tasked by the Premier to develop the Fund My Neighbourhood program. We received that recently and took that opportunity to have a conversation with the Department of the Premier and Cabinet about how best to engage with local government, particularly the Local Government Association, as they developed the details of that program. We understand that the Department of the Premier and Cabinet are doing so and is, in particular, working very closely with the Local Government Association to ensure that the delivery of the program is cognisant of the benefits that can be gained to it through the greater involvement of the LGA.

Mr PISONI: Can the funds be used to part fund council programs? For example, is it a condition that a Fund My Neighbourhood grant must be a project on its own, or can it be a project that has matched funding or a percentage of funding from local government?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: The Premier is yet to announce the details of the program and if we can wait until the Premier makes that announcement.

Mr PISONI: Have you been advised as to when that announcement will be made? Have the guidelines been formulated?

The CHAIR: Do I take it, minister, that you are not the minister responsible for administering this program?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am not the minister responsible for that, but the Premier will make that announcement as soon as he can. If the member would like some more information on that, he should ask the relevant minister for the information.

Mr PISONI: So, you know nothing whatsoever about it?

The CHAIR: The minister does not even need to comment because he is not the minister responsible.

Mr PISONI: Can I take you to dot point 3 where one of the targets for 2017-18 is that you will, 'Continue the Premier's State/Local Government Forum to progress matters of mutual interest and enhance intergovernmental co-operation.' How old is that forum? How long has that forum been running for?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: The Premier's State/Local Government Forum provides advice to the Premier, myself and the Local Government Association on matters of priority to both state and local government. The forum meets four times per calendar year to oversee and progress matters. A communiqué, which provides a summary of outcomes, is then released after each forum meeting. The communiqués are available at the Office of Local Government website. The forum recently met on 14 June 2017. Discussions were held on reviewing the codes of conduct for council members and employees, simplifying regulation, growing and supporting our economy, a regional growth strategy and a proposed community wellbeing alliance.

The next forum meeting is scheduled for October 2017. It is anticipated that the forum will endorse and sign the schedule of priorities for 2017-18 at that meeting. If I can just go back, the forum began in 2014, straight after the election.

Mr PISONI: There are no ratepayer groups represented on that forum? What I can see from the communiqué of 20 March, which is the latest available online, I believe, is that you have the president of the Local Government Association; Peter Lamps, who is the secretary of the Australian Workers' Union; and Joseph Scales, who is the secretary of the Australia Services Union. Who else is part of the membership?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Obviously, the Premier is chairing the meeting. As Minister for Local Government, I attend. I have representatives from the Office of Local Government. You indicated that we have the president and the CE of the Local Government Association, and representatives from both the unions that you have already mentioned. There are a couple of others. If I think about it in a minute, I will come back to you on that one.

Mr PISONI: So, who chairs the meetings?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I made a mention of it a minute ago. The Premier chairs the meetings.

Mr PISONI: Does he chair them all?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: If the Premier is there, yes.

Mr PISONI: He obviously was not there for the 20 March meeting, because the communiqué says the forum was chaired by the Minister for Local Government, Geoff Brock. On how many occasions has the Premier attended?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: From memory, that is the only time that the Premier was not chairing the meeting.

Mr PISONI: The forum of 20 March has a heading 'Rate capping'. The forum was updated on the LGA’s campaign that was raising awareness of crucial community services and opposing council rate capping. Was the forum advised at that meeting of how much money the Local Government Association was spending on that campaign?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I would have thought the member would have realised that that is an issue for the LGA. What the LGA would be doing is—

Mr PISONI: You were at this meeting. I was asking whether it was raised at that meeting.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: No, I do not recall anything like that being discussed there. Again, I reiterate it is the LGA that would make the decision of what they do.

Mr PISONI: Mr Lamps and Mr Scales reiterated their view that rate capping would impact negatively on councils and in particular on the local government workforce. Did they elaborate at that meeting how that would happen?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: The communiqué gives an overview or analysis of what discussions were being held at each meeting. If the member is interested in what the union members may have said, I am sure that he has the contact number for those union members to be able to have a discussion with them.

Mr PISONI: When you were chairing that meeting, did you, as the local government minister, inquire as to how it would impact the local government workforce?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Again, I hear what they say. The LGA has made it clear what their views may be, and they will do what they will do.

Mr PISONI: Do you agree with them? Do you believe that—

The CHAIR: What the minister believes and who he agrees with is completely irrelevant.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: What page number?

The CHAIR: Minister, you can answer it anyway you wish, really. It is of no interest to this committee what you believe, sadly.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: My views do not come into account.

Mr PISONI: So, you do not think it will make any difference? Is that what you are saying?

The CHAIR: Do you have another question, member for Unley?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Do you have a sensible question?

Mr PISONI: You do not think rate capping will make any difference to a local government employee workforce?

The CHAIR: Alright. Member for Giles, do you have a question?

Mr HUGHES: I certainly do. Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, Portfolio Statement, page 86. Can you provide an update on the progress of revising the codes of conduct for elected members and council employees?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: As committee members may recall, the codes of conduct for council members and council employees came into operation as part of the amendments made to the Local Government Act by the introduction of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption in South Australia. The Code of Conduct for Council Members came into operation on 1 September 2013, while the council employees code of conduct came into effect on 12 February 2014. I have been undertaking a review of the codes of conduct for council members and council employees to ensure that they are working as well as they should be.

Both the Ombudsman and the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (the commissioner) have provided detailed comments on this extensive review, which the Office of Local Government has been working through. In discussions at the Premier's State/Local Government Forum on the review of the codes, it has been suggested that the state remove itself from regulating behavioural matters at the council level, and that the codes be paused. The Premier is of the view, which I share, that the state government should have no role in regulating the behaviour of elected representatives within another sphere of government.

There is an important difference between poor behaviour on one hand and conduct that can affect the integrity of council members' decisions on the other. While the state government will always have a role in ensuring the integrity of council members' decisions, the state should not be regulating the behaviour of elected members from another sphere of government. This is a matter for councils, their members and their communities. Forum members also agreed that there should then be consideration of legislative amendments to remove the heads of power for the codes and, importantly, to elevate the remaining integrity matters from the new code regulations into the act itself.

I will seek the views of the chief integrity bodies in the state, the commissioner and the Ombudsman, as to what integrity matters they consider should be retained. However, I note that the commissioner appeared before the Crime and Public Integrity Committee on 25 May 2017, and expressed his view that the codes were being misused and that many complaints under the codes are generated by personality differences between council members, rather than by genuine concerns regarding conduct. I understand the LGA is working to develop a new model for the future. I have therefore proposed that the renewed code would not commence before 31 October. This will enable the LGA to support the sector to develop council policies covering member behaviour.

Mr PISONI: Just on that same line, how long has the review of the code of conduct been conducted? Progressing the review has been a highlight in several budgets. When was it first raised with your department that it was not working?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: The codes of conduct for council members and council employees came into operation as part of the amendments made to the Local Government Act by the introduction of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (ICAC) in South Australia in 2012. The Code of Conduct for Council Members commenced on 1 September 2013, while the council employees code of conduct commenced on 13 February 2014. These codes were designed to be a tool to ensure that council members and employees act in the interest of the public that they are elected or appointed to serve.

In mid-2014, I initiated a review of the codes of conduct for council members and council employees. Both the Ombudsman and the ICAC have provided detailed comments on this extensive review, which the Office of Local Government has been working through. I just reiterate that, as you can see, it has been an extensive review, and I am looking forward to stuff coming back from the Office of Local Government from all the people concerned.

Mr PISONI: What triggered the review of a code of conduct that was so new? On what basis did you initiate it?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: At the outset, when the review of this mandatory code was first put into place, it was agreed that there would be a review after it had been going for a while, and this is what we are doing now. We are having a review of the codes.

Mr PISONI: What does 'going for a while' mean?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: The review was of the mandatory code. It was agreed at the time that it would be reviewed after a couple of years—a period of time—to see how it was operating. That is why we are doing the review now.

Mr PISONI: But you started the review after less than a couple of a years, did you not? How long after the code of conduct was put in place was the review started?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I will ask Alex Hart to answer that. There is a lot more information there, but I will ask her to give that detailed information.

Ms HART: Thank you, minister. As the minister stated, the Code of Conduct for Council Members commenced on 1 September 2013. It was agreed at the time that as it was a new mechanism, it would be reviewed after it had been in operation for around the two-year mark. As the minister has also noted, that review or preparations for the review commenced in 2014, as we were aware that we would be soon approaching that date and we wished to be prepared for it.

Mr PISONI: The advice has been 'around about two years'. Was when the review would happen documented? Was this code of conduct regulation—I do not remember whether it was regulation or legislation—mentioned in Hansard? Where did the two years come from? 'Around the two years' sounds a bit funny to me. I have never seen that term used in government.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am not too sure if it was formalised in Hansard but certainly back in 2012, when it was first put in place, my information is it was agreed at the time that a review would take place after a two-year period, after a couple of years' period, and that is what we have done. As Alex Hart has indicated, it was in 2012 and two years after that is 2014 and, therefore, we had to be looking for an opportunity to review it, as indicated back in 2012.

Mr PISONI: You mentioned in your answer to the member for Giles' question that the new code of conduct was with the LGA. What role did the LGA have in formulating the new code of conduct?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: The LGA have discussions. They go back to their members, who are the relevant councils across the metropolitan and regional areas of South Australia, to get their views and to get the best advice as to how they can best serve their members.

Mr PISONI: The Premier's State/Local Government Forum on 20 March refers to the code of conduct, and it says that the issue will be progressed between the government, the LGA and the unions ahead of the next forum. What role have the unions played in the formation of the local government code of conduct?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: The unions have provided advice on the impact of the codes that are in place on local government employees—that is for both the inside workforce and the outside workforce. They would be providing advice on the impact on their employees, the union employees.

Mr PISONI: Is that for the current code or the new code?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: The current code.

Mr PISONI: Have the unions been involved in the development of the new code of conduct?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: We are taking their suggestions and advice into consideration.

Mr PISONI: Are you also getting legal advice?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I do not think, Mr Chair, that is a matter I can elaborate on.

Mr PISONI: In relation to code of conduct issues, I think on up to three occasions the Adelaide city council did not have quorum because people felt that there may have been a perceived conflict of interest and so did not turn up for the meeting. How will that be dealt with under the changes you are proposing?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Conflicts of interest are not under the codes of conduct. They are a separate issue under a separate act. They are under the Local Government Act.

Mr PISONI: Does that mean that, after these changes, we could very well continue to see councils that cannot meet quorum because of perceived conflicts of interest?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Are you talking about codes of conduct or conflicts of interest? There are two separate issues here.

The CHAIR: I think what the member—

Mr PISONI: How is a conflict of interest—

The CHAIR: Member for Unley! I think what the member is doing is referring to past events and wondering if the code of conduct will remedy those, and you, minister, are saying that the Local Government Act already has a remedy for those. The member is interrogating that, which is completely outside the scope of estimates, so I will go to the member for Ashford for a question.

The Hon. S.W. KEY: My question is in relation to Community Wastewater Management Systems. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, portfolio statement, page 86. How is the Community Wastewater Management Systems program supporting regional councils and their communities?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: The state government continues to support councils throughout South Australia to construct Community Wastewater Management Systems (CWMS). The state government has committed to investing more than $47 million over the next 10 years from 1 July 2017 to extend the CWMS funding agreement to support the installation of essential infrastructure in regional towns.

This commitment to continue funding this program will mean that thousands more regional South Australians will have equitable access to this essential service. These systems provide cost-effective communal wastewater services in regional communities where full sewerage services cannot be justified. A review of the funding agreement conducted last year concluded that the CWMS program was recognised as an outstanding success.

Over the past decade, the program has supported more than 3,000 households across 11 communities to be connected to wastewater services that address public and environmental health concerns and underpin development and economic growth in our regions. The funding agreement provides for an annual allocation of approximately $4 million to councils to support the installation of CWMS, primarily in regional towns and cities where conventional urban sewer systems are not provided by SA Water or other major water industry authorities.

The funding the state government provides enables councils to provide these services at a cost to users that is equivalent to the cost of sewerage schemes provided by SA Water. The state's subsidy ensures equity between our regional and metropolitan citizens for this essential service. The agreement requires that the funds are allocated by the Local Government Association on the advice of a CWMS management committee and according to conditions and principles set out in the agreement and the state government policy for CWMS. The management committee consists of representatives from local government and a broad range of relevant state government agencies, including the Office of Local Government, the Environment Protection Authority, SA Health and the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources.

These schemes not only ensure that public and environmental health standards in our regional towns are met, but also often provide the necessary infrastructure for those communities to pursue economic development opportunities. This commitment from the state government over the next decade will allow even more regional councils to install modern wastewater management facilities in their town. Again, as I mentioned earlier, it often provides the necessary infrastructure for those communities to pursue economic development opportunities which, in turn, could produce regional growth opportunities and employment.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Mr Chair, I have a supplementary question, if I may. Minister, the commitment is the appropriate one to make, but what sort of list exists now? I am told that it has been 30 years in the waiting to become a priority for funding. I understand that needs to take place, but I am interested in, on the basis of the funds that are available over that 10-year period, how many are on the list and how many it is believed can actually be undertaken in that time.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Councils have been asked for expressions of interest for this new program. The committee will review and prioritise those requests according to the needs of those being submitted. I am advised the committee will address the priority of the listing to try to get away from the old system where an item was on the list but other priorities may have come in. I have been advised that the priority listing will be getting the ones that are needed first for hygiene, health and safety.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I do not want to hold up the chamber by asking for more details on that; that is alright.

The CHAIR: Are there any more questions? Member for Unley?

Mr PISONI: In the Premier's State/Local Government Forum minutes of March this year, there is a reference under the heading Public Health Initiative about collaboration between the LGA and SA Health to develop a community-based program following the secession of funding for the OPAL program. Was your department consulted about the decision to stop funding the OPAL program when that happened earlier in the financial year?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Again, I refer the member to the correct minister, and that is the Minister for Health. I would ask that the member redirects that question when the Minister for Health has his opportunity.

Mr PISONI: Program 3, Office of Local Government: the description/objective says that the Office of Local Government provides policy and other advice to the Minister for Local Government. This program was basically delivered through local government. It is a relevant question whether your department was either consulted or offered any advice on the success or otherwise of the OPAL program.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: There is a wide range of activities and functions of councils that cover various portfolios, and this is one of those areas. As the member would be aware, the Local Government Act carries certain things that are under the portfolio of another minister.

Mr GRIFFITHS: If I may seek clarification, Chair. I know of the impact on regional and metropolitan councils that were part of the OPAL program. Two that come to mind, quickly, are Playford and Copper Coast. Given that there is a regional impact upon this decision, did this trigger the regional impact assessment statement to be undertaken and therefore taken to cabinet before the decision was made to withdraw funds?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am not too sure whether that is an appropriate question for the estimates committee. That should be a question relevant to the Minister for Health.

The CHAIR: I think that is right. The member for Unley was well within his rights to ask about the advice given to the Minister for Health, but your question was out of order.

Mr PISONI: Back to the table on page 86, supplies and services. There have been some dramatic changes in both budgeted and estimated amounts and actual amounts in the two years that we are seeing in the table. The actual amount for the 2015-16 year was $590,000, yet this year's budget is $99,000. Are you able to advise if there was a particularly large item that took the 2015-16 actual budget to $590,000?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I will get Ben Seidel to give a more detailed explanation to the question from the member.

Mr SEIDEL: The changes from 2015-16 actual to 2017-18 budget, to confirm, is what we are looking at—the $590,000 or just the general—

Mr PISONI: I want to know what the $590,000 was spent on. Was there a particularly large item—a consultancy, or what was it?

Mr SEIDEL: If we look at that number, there is about $200,000 relating to internal business support charges. So, across all the seven programs of the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, within the supplies and services line across each of those individual programs a notional budget is put out for business support charges, so about $200,000 relates to that. There was about $200,000 in 2015-16 that related to landfills in the APY lands. That has now been moved to Program 6: Infrastructure, Planning and Management, so that is the majority of that $590,000 figure. The last $100,000 is on general supplies and services, and I will have to take on notice to get a breakdown of specifically what that is.

Mr PISONI: A shift in responsibility for that particular item?

Mr SEIDEL: Yes, landfills in the APY lands has now moved to program 6.

Mr PISONI: And the $99,000, is that a contingency figure or is it in the budget for 2017-18 or do you have your eye on something there?

Mr SEIDEL: That is the budget for 2017-18, and it will have a component of business support charge and a small budget for the office.

Mr PISONI: So, it is money you are paying another government department?

Mr SEIDEL: Sorry, when you say the $99,000, is it in the 2017-18 budget?

Mr PISONI: Yes.

Mr SEIDEL: That will be the budget specifically for the office, which is headed by Alex. It is going to have a component of business support charges, which are charged internally across all programs, and then there will be a small amount that relates to supplies and services.

Mr PISONI: So, that is money that you give other government departments? That is money that will go to other government departments from your department?

Mr SEIDEL: No, it is not.

Mr PISONI: Where does the money go?

Mr SEIDEL: Sorry, when you say 'other government departments', it goes to the support. There is a finance function in the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure and there is an HR function. They provide support to the Office of Local Government, and that is what the business support charges go to contributing towards. Rather than the Office of Local Government having its own finance function and its own HR function, an amount is allocated in supplies and services that is then charged across and spread back across the department.

Mr PISONI: If we go back to the review of the code of conduct, will the new code of conduct address some of the closed meetings and secrecy that we have seen reported on lately, particularly with the Onkaparinga council? For example, there was $22,000 in legal fees that the council used to try to stop an Ombudsman's investigation into $6,000 in golf fees that were paid by the council on behalf of the CEO. Will the new code of conduct have any guidance or any code on how to deal with that sort of issue?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: First up, the member is referring to matters that are dealt with under the Local Government Act itself. That is not part of codes of conduct. Conduct is for elected members and so forth, which is behavioural issues and also some integrity matters. What you are asking for is not under the code of conduct.

Mr PISONI: Is the decision to close a meeting to the public something you are planning to address as part of this review, or is your review only about code of conduct? You are not looking at amending the act at all to deal with some of the secrecy provisions or loopholes that local governments use to keep secrets from their ratepayers?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: First up, councils can hold meetings relevant under section 90 of the act.

Mr PISONI: I understand that. I am asking whether you are going to be reviewing that?

The CHAIR: Hang on, the minister is answering the question.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: My expectation of councils is that they do everything correctly. We have had this discussion. The informal gatherings are open to the public wherever possible. Decisions to hold informal gatherings in confidence are made on a case by case basis, depending on whether it qualifies under that particular section. Councils publish notification details of informal gatherings on their website to ensure that interested members of the public can attend. If a council decides to hold an informal gathering in confidence, the reason for that decision also has to be briefly stated on the website.

However, a review of the council policy that has been adopted since the commencement of the amendment act evidenced a sector-wide failure to implement the attendant reform in this area. Disappointingly, despite the intent of the amendment act, the review revealed that approximately half of all councils were continuing their practice of closed informal gatherings and had adopted a policy that provided for that continued practice.

This position is inconsistent with accepted standards of open and accountable government and is not consistent with my expectations, nor those of the South Australian community. My original intent was to allow councils the opportunity to amend their policies and practices accordingly without the need for regulation; however, in light of the widespread inadequacy of council informal gathering policies, it was necessary to make regulations that prescribe requirements for informal gathering policies.

I advised all councils that I would make regulations to ensure that informal gatherings are held in public wherever possible, that members of the public are able to know when and where these meetings are held and, if there is a good reason why an informal gathering must be held behind closed doors, what this reason is. These regulations were made on 27 October 2016. The regulations contain practical assistance for councils by including a clear process and definition of a designated informal gathering or discussion to which the new requirements apply.

At the request of the Local Government Association, I delayed the commencement of the new regulations until 24 November 2016 to allow councils that had not yet amended their informal gathering and discussion policies additional time to do so. I also wrote to all councils to inform them that the regulations were made and to advise them of the commencement date. As the regulations are now in force, councils must comply with them, and I have every expectation that they will do so. The regulations will ensure consistency in this important area of open and accountable government and enhance the confidence of the South Australian community in the decisions being made by local councils.

The member for Goyder and I had this discussion when the bill went through; we both want transparency in councils finally. I also expect that councils will comply with the act when deciding when matters should be discussed in confidence in the informal meetings.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Can I seek clarification on that? Just in relation to that, I completely understand, but in giving public notice of the reasons as to why it is to be treated informally, is that a matter of actually quoting the section of the Local Government Act that provides for doing so, or indeed the reasons behind why that section is being used? Otherwise, if you just quote, 'It is in camera by virtue of subsection such and such,' that means very little to people. Is there a need for an outline as to why?

The CHAIR: We are straying quite a bit into policy that was already debated in the house.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I only referred to the answer the minister provided.

The CHAIR: Supplementaries are out of order anyway, so I am being quite lenient.

Mr GRIFFITHS: But 'in seeking clarification' are the words I actually used.

The CHAIR: What I am getting to is that the minister can answer how he wishes or not at all.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Councils are expected to advise as to why they go into confidentiality; for informal meetings they have to do that. I would very much expect that councils would have the same regard if it is going to be something in confidence—it could be something that might be personal or something like that. Certainly, my view is that everybody else's view is to have as much transparency as we can.

When councils discuss things under the confidential part of their formal meetings, they have a portion where they can do that under the section of the act, but I would expect that information, if it can be brought out into the open, to be brought out into the open chamber at the end of that meeting, providing it is not commercial-in-confidence, and then for councillors themselves to stand by their decision to have a discussion in confidence but to defend it in the open.

Mr PISONI: This refers really, again, to council conduct matters: is it your expectation, or do you think it is reasonable, that councils should sponsor AFL football clubs with ratepayers' money?

The CHAIR: That is not for you to comment on, minister. You can answer it if you wish.

Mr PISONI: Well, it is.

The CHAIR: The minister's view on that is just irrelevant.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: What I will say is that what councils do is a council decision. They are elected by the people to make decisions as they see appropriate for their electors and do what they have to do. What I expect councillors to do, whatever decision they make, if they are discussing it under the relevant section of the act, is to bring that out into the open chamber and have it fully disclosed to the public.

Mr PISONI: As the minister, you are perfectly comfortable with a local government sponsoring an AFL football team?

The CHAIR: The minister's comfort is not our concern.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I think that is an irrelevant question.

Mr PISONI: It is not irrelevant for ratepayers who have to foot the bill.

The CHAIR: Any more questions?

Mr PISONI: Yes. This goes back to your objective as the minister: did the Hon. Tung Ngo discuss his private members' bill, Constitution (Council Member Contesting Election) Amendment Bill 2017, with you prior to introducing it into the parliament?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Mr Chair, I do not see how that has relevance to an estimates committee which is relevant to the program that we have in front of us, program 3. If you can give me a page number or a folio number, I am happy to have a look at that, but I cannot see the relevance of discussing a bill in estimates.

The CHAIR: Can you repeat the question and the line you are referring to?

Mr PISONI: The line I am referring to is objectives of the Office of Local Government.

The CHAIR: Yes.

Mr PISONI: And the objective written in the budget says, 'Office of Local Government provides policy and other advice to the Minister for Local Government.' I find it unbelievable that the minister would not think it relevant that he would seek advice on a change to a bill in parliament that affects the term of an elected member of council. That is why the question is very relevant.

The CHAIR: What was the question?

Mr PISONI: The question was: did the Hon. Tung Ngo discuss his private members' bill, Constitution (Council Member Contesting Election) Amendment Bill 2017, prior to introducing it into the parliament? Did he discuss it with the minister or the minister's office?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: It is a private members' bill, Mr Chair. It is not relevant.

The CHAIR: Your preamble does not even relate to the description/objective of the Office of Local Government.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: It has to do with the election, the Constitution Act.

Mr PISONI: It is a very important role in local government, the way somebody is dealt with once they become a political candidate for a state election.

The CHAIR: Your question is whether the Hon. Tung Ngo discussed it with the minister—

Mr PISONI: Yes, that is the question.

The CHAIR: —before the bill came to the house?

Mr PISONI: Yes, that is the question. It just needs a yes or a no.

The CHAIR: It is out of order. It has nothing to do with estimates. It is completely out of order.

Mr PISONI: It has. Why is this line in here then about objectives of the Office of Local Government?

The CHAIR: About the minister's office providing him with advice?

Mr PISONI: About advice. That the Office of Local Government provides policy and other advice. That is a policy.

The CHAIR: Provides advice to the minister.

Mr PISONI: That is a policy.

The CHAIR: Yes, that is right. So, the description/objective—

Mr PISONI: So, a member of the government introduces a bill—

The CHAIR: —is about the office providing advice to the minister.

Mr PISONI: —into parliament and it is not a matter for the relevant minister?

The CHAIR: Well, it is a matter for the minister—

Mr PISONI: Sounds extraordinary.

The CHAIR: —but it is not a matter—it does not affect the office's advice to the minister. It is just not relevant. We have about a minute to go.

Mr PISONI: If it passes in this house, will the minister take carriage of it in the House of Assembly?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am advised that it is an amendment to the Constitution Act, not an amendment to the Local Government Act.

The CHAIR: So, the minister does not even have responsibility for the act.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: The Constitution Act is delegated to the Premier.

Mr PISONI: This goes back to your targets. How often do you meet with individual mayors? When was the last time you met with the Lord Mayor of Adelaide?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I continue to make it a key part of my business to meet all of our councils. I believe that as much face-to-face contact as possible is the best way to communicate and get a better understanding of the challenges councils are facing and to talk with those community leaders about opportunities that are presenting themselves.

There are 68 councils in South Australia, with 49 being in non-metropolitan locations. I also work very closely with the Outback Communities Authority to support its important work assisting those communities in the non-council areas. I have had personal contact with all 68 councils over the last 18 months and intend to continue to meet with councils as often as I can to ensure that I am up to date with their concerns and have useful discussions about legislative reforms and other matters.

In my time as minister I have met members and staff from all councils, particularly at all LGA events, including the AGM, OGM and metropolitan local government group meetings, and I will continue to do so throughout my role as the Minister for Local Government.

The CHAIR: Thank you, minister, and thank you to the advisers for all your hard work. According to the agreed timetable, I declare the examination of proposed payments complete. After examination of the last proposed payments, I lay before the committee a draft report.

Mr HUGHES: I move:

That the draft report be the report of the committee.

Motion carried.

At 17:02 the committee concluded.