House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Wohlstadt, Mr M. WOHLSTADT, MR M. Mr PICCOLO House of Assembly Light Mr PICCOLO (Light) (15:45): On 1 June The Advertiser ran a story regarding the termination of the employment of the Town of Gawler's Director of Planning, Mr Michael Wohlstadt. The overall tone of the story was essentially that Mr Wohlstadt was a humble public servant who was the innocent victim of crossfire between the Town of Gawler and the state government. Having worked alongside Mr Wohlstadt for some years and having been involved in the DPA processes that gave rise to the conflict between the Town of Gawler and the state government, I am in a good position to provide this house with some insight into this matter. I understand that Mr Wohlstadt has commenced or is about to commence legal action against the council alleging wrongful dismissal. Accordingly, I do not intend to address the issue of whether the dismissal was wrong or unlawful as that is the proper domain of the appropriate tribunal. The whole affair raises three serious issues: firstly, the transparency and accountability of council decision-making; secondly, comparisons with the Peter Beare v Light Regional Council matter and the crisis at the City of Burnside last year in relation to governance structures; and, thirdly, the accuracy of statements made to this parliament (albeit in the other place) by Mr Wohlstadt through a citizen's right of reply. I can assure the house that Mr Wohlstadt is no shrinking violet and certainly no humble public servant. Mr Wohlstadt has always enjoyed playing politics so it is a gross distortion to suggest Mr Wohlstadt's role as director of planning was only to follow council instructions. I am saddened to say that in the court of public opinion Mr Wohlstadt's dismissal has been overwhelmingly well received. There are a few aggrieved by the council's decision, but the vast majority who have contacted my office have supported the council's action. I say 'sad' because Mr Wohlstadt is a very competent planner. However, his actions are not highly regarded by the community at large nor by his peers in the region. Mr Wohlstadt advised the Legislative Council in his citizen's reply that at all times he followed council instructions and that he had not approached other landowners to invest in the council legal action against a former minister. Those statements are, at best, debatable, and, in all likelihood, inaccurate. Additionally, there is evidence to suggest that Mr Wohlstadt went legal opinion shopping until he obtained the opinion that met his cause. There is also evidence that he withheld information from both the CEO and the council regarding the scope and extent of the legal advice obtained. I mention these two matters because there are a few local supporters of Mr Wohlstadt who have suggested that both the CEO and the council should accept full responsibility for the legal action. At one level this is correct and true; however, both the CEO and the council based their decision on advice provided to them. If the advice is skewed, so is the council decision. Returning to the first point, the community will never know in its entirety what advice was given to council as it was provided behind closed doors. While it is appropriate for councils to consider matters in confidence from time to time, it does lead to a lack of transparency and accountability in decision-making. We do not know what was taken into account to arrive at this decision and who voted which way. The meeting regulations can and should be amended to maximise transparency and accountability. I intend to hold discussions with both the minister for local government and the LGA to explore how this could be achieved. What this case has in common with the Peter Beare v Light Regional Council matter and Burnside council fiasco is that existing governance arrangements— The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Point of order. The Hon. I.F. EVANS House of Assembly The Hon. I.F. EVANS: My understanding is that the Peter Beare matter is before the court and therefore the member's speech may well influence what is before the court. My understanding is that the Peter Beare matter is not a matter that has been concluded by the court. Mr PICCOLO House of Assembly Mr PICCOLO: I will not be touching on that legal issue either, or the legal action. Mrs Redmond interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Light, just hold on for a moment. The member for Davenport must have information that we are certainly not aware of here. I am not sure if you are aware of that information, but I suggest you be very, very careful about what you say. Mr PICCOLO House of Assembly Mr PICCOLO: Yes, Madam Speaker. What I suggest is that, given what has been said in the public domain, what this case has in common with both the Light Regional Council matter, which has been reported, plus the Burnside council matter, governance arrangements only work when reasonable people act reasonably. The governance structures are not robust enough to avoid bad decision making when very strong personalities are involved. This deficiency needs to be addressed. The whole drama that is under consideration—this current drama regarding the Gawler council—will cost the Gawler ratepayers up to $500,000, and it has also tarnished the reputation of a local family company who have been good corporate citizens within the region. Time expired.