Bills

Local Government (Governance) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 7 August 2014.)

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (16:48): Deputy Speaker, I have listened to your express instructions that people need to speak up and I will do so to give them the benefit of hearing about this matter. It is a pleasure to stand before you as the lead speaker for the opposition on the Local Government (Governance) Amendment Bill 2014 and to confirm, minister, that we will support it. There is no intention to go into committee, there are no amendments, and, given that it involves only two clauses, it would be rather unusual to do that. I am advised that, with the absence of the Minister for Local Government because of ill health, the Attorney will be handling the bill today.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: And he nods in agreement, just for the benefit of Hansard. There are a couple of things I want to put on the record so that we have the opportunity in future to review this. There has been a lot of discussion about this. The Local Government Association approached me, as the shadow minister, and the minister some months ago seeking an opportunity for three amendments to be considered. Because of some concerns about the third amendment, which related to penalty provisions, we will not pursue it at this time, but it might be subject to a further review of the Local Government Act that the minister undertakes early next year. We are consolidating this into two areas.

To put it succinctly, it relates purely to the wording of the oath that is taken by those who are successful in the November local government elections. My understanding is that an improvement was sought and it is deemed best to do that via regulation. The regulations are not prepared at this stage, but the minister has confirmed via his staff members that consultation with myself and the local government industry will be undertaken on that.

The second area relates to the training components for those who are elected members and staff of council post election also. When you look at it in the reasonably objective way that I try to do on most things, I have been rather disappointed by the number of code of conduct complaints that I have seen in the last 18 months or so that local government in many councils has been dealing with and the costs in legal fees and reviews associated with that.

In some ways, I see this training component as being an important measure to prevent that from occurring, so those who are elected members and staff understand what are their requirements and the expectations of how they have to conduct themselves. It is not to restrict or hinder the inquisitive nature they may have, the need for good debate to occur within the chamber, and the need to ensure that the absolute best decision is made, but it is some education opportunities, and it is a good step forward.

In my earlier discussions with the Local Government Association, I came from the belief that a level of training is already there; some councils use it quite well, and others probably not quite so. It may be the attitude of individual members, particularly those who have been around for some time, who see it as not being necessary, and in some cases those elected as new members see it as not being necessarily, but those of us in this chamber probably recognise that learning is a lifelong experience so the opportunity should always be there for it to be undertaken.

I read in a press release put out by Mr O'Loughlin, mayor of prospect and President of the Local Government Association, that there had been 22 different courses that had evolved in the last 14 months and involved 2,000 elected members and employees who had undertaken training, so it is an effort that has been made for a long time.

The amendments to the Local Government Act 1999 were first recommended by the then ombudsman, Mr Richard Bingham, in the 2011 final report of the investigation into the City of Charles Sturt, an investigation which stemmed from council's involvement in the St Clair Reserve land swap and which reported on findings in relation to conflicts of interest, code of conduct, the council's consultation process, confidentiality issues and prudential requirements. Additionally, as a result of the ICAC Act of 2012, the Local Government Act was amended to include the requirement of a mandatory code of conduct for council members and employees. In light of this, it is important that elected members and staff are aware of the lawful responsibilities.

It was interesting to note the comments from the ICAC Commissioner, the Hon. Bruce Lander, on 3 September, that councils are overrepresented in corruption complaints, and I understand that the LGA refutes that claim, but it is a comment the commissioner made. Initiatives under this bill are expected to assist the 714 elected members in South Australia conduct themselves appropriately. Last year, via the Local Government Association, amendments were drafted to change sections 60 and 80A, which is what we are dealing with today. They were not introduced in time before parliament was prorogued. However, since the March election the Local Government Association has worked quite diligently to ensure that the promotion of these amendments took place with the minister and the shadow minister.

Following numerous discussions with the Local Government Association CEO, Wendy Campana, I received a letter on 4 July from the LGA president, Mr O'Loughlin, on the subject of urgent amendments to the Local Government Act. The letter urged the Liberal Party to support the amendments to ensure that the changes are in place immediately after the local government elections in November. By processing them now, there is a surety that, on the basis of support from the upper house (which is never a sure thing, given democracy), they will be approved and assented to before the election is held. Mr O'Loughlin stated:

The LGA is seeking to have the proposed change to section 60 and the proposed change to section 80A enacted without delay. These changes are, respectively, a change to enable a more meaningful and comprehensive undertaking to be prescribed for Council Members to make when they first take office and a change to enable the introduction of mandatory training for Council Members. Both these changes are fully supported by the Local Government sector and the LGA Board.

In the consultation that I undertook on this I chose to contact the regional local government bodies; not the individual councils but the bodies that they are regionally associated with. Overwhelmingly the support came through. There were some concerns raised about what the wording of the regulations would be and the need to have some further consultation about that but I believe that commitment has been given.

The minister, in his second reading speech, reiterated the purpose of the amendments, specifically that the changes will assist elected members to develop an enhanced understanding of their roles and responsibilities in representing their communities. I quote:

…their declaration upon taking office will be significant and they will be subject to a mandatory, though not too onerous, requirement that they undertake training and development.

Currently the Local Government Association offer the training, as I have said before. Over the last 14 month period, 2,000 people were involved in that training. In relation to the bill where mandatory training is introduced, the LGA supports the inclusion of penalties for noncompliance. That is what I understood the position to be. I am aware that the LGA has submitted to the minister that the penalty provision should be similar to the process that currently exists for elected members who fail to lodge a primary or ordinary return of their interest. There will be some further discussion about that because that issue is not part of this bill. Mr O'Loughlin stated:

…the ultimate sanction should include the possibility of the office of the Council Member being declared vacant for deliberate non-compliance.

Again, that is subject to some further debate and a separate bill to deal with it. The LGA does recognise, however, that the penalty provisions may require further consultation and may not be appropriate for inclusion in this urgent bill so, therefore, it has not been proceeded with.

From my point of view as a person who worked in local government for 27 years, I think training is absolutely important and I fully support that. In my discussions with opposition members I have put to them the case that I feel that these amendments are not contentious and that there is an appropriate need for it to occur. It is not a matter of Big Brother demanding that, as the state government and local government exist by virtue of statute, it tells local government what to do. I think it is a reflection of the expectation of the community. I am pleased to see and to put on the record that local government has recognised that itself by promoting these amendments and that it is not something that has been forced upon it.

The local government sector is an exceptionally important sector. In round figures it has $19 billion in assets and 10,000 employees with $2 billion in revenue per year, I believe I heard the president mention last night, with a deficit situation in the last financial year of $1 million in total for the 68 councils, reflecting 0.05 per cent of the value of the expenditure that has occurred. That shows to me that it is, as humanly possible, a responsible group. With those few words, I do hope that other members will support the swift passage of the bill and I look forward to support from the Legislative Council and it being assented to.

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (16:57): I rise to also support the bill and the amendments in question. I would like to commence by firstly acknowledging, as the member for Goyder has done, the good work that local government and local councils especially do in the community. They do a fantastic job in my area. I have three councils in Hartley: the City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters (which is my old council), as well as the Burnside council and the Campbelltown council.

It is notable that many members in this place have learnt their craft in local government. I look to my right at the esteemed member for Bright, a former deputy mayor of a local council. We have the member for Light, the member for Frome, the member for Giles and the member for Goyder, who was obviously very heavily involved as well. It goes without saying that many in this place have acquired knowledge that is particular to their council, which I am sure has been taken into account when considering this bill.

As we have heard, it seeks to amend section 60 and section 80A of the Local Government Act. I am happy to support it. As far as I am concerned, I believe that where we can we need to take councils with us and listen to local government when instigating the changes they want. I am happy to support it, especially considering the comments of Wendy Campana, the LGA chief executive.

When I first looked at the amendments, I thought back to my time in local government. I note that here we are asking for mandatory codes of conduct to be inserted and certain aspects of mandatory training. I will support these amendments, but one thing I will say is that I would like to give credit to the councils and the good work that they do already. In my time as an elected member, the local council had optional training sessions and ran workshops during the week, and I am sure that that also happened across the board. First, I point out that an element of this training is occurring; however, I think that this will better crystallise what is happening out there.

Apart from that, there are also some exceptional law firms in South Australia that I, along with members of staff and councillors on the council I was part of, found whenever we needed some advice on a particular matter were also quite good and very professional and were happy to provide any advice, but any amendment which furthers that and which sets that in concrete, I will certainly support. If local government is asking for the support, then we should certainly give it that support.

Currently, as we have heard, the LGA offer training and education courses for elected members. I note that on one of their websites there were actually 22 courses on offer, ranging in cost, and it has been said that 2,000 elected members and local government employees have actually undertaken training with the LGA's Education and Training Service in the last 14 months. What does that tell us? It tells us that this is an important issue. It tells us that people are certainly looking at education and becoming more skilled and schooled in this area. Obviously the LGA has submitted that we consider this as a matter of urgency. I am happy to do that. I look forward to working with other aspects and elements of government down the track, and I commend the bill to the house.

Mr SPEIRS (Bright) (17:01): It gives me pleasure to be able to rise today and support the government's amendment to the Local Government Act 1999. I like to take any opportunity to speak about local government. It is an area in which I have a significant interest, having spent 3½ years on Marion council. As the member for Hartley mentioned, he was also a member of local government as were many members of this house, and it is a place in which many people who look at serving in other tiers of government do start off their careers.

The amendments before us today are quite straightforward and I do not think Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has any particular concern about supporting them. They seek to make some fairly common-sense changes to the act, to introduce mandatory training and development for elected members, and to increase the significance of the oath of office that elected members have to give when they enter into public office.

Having been the deputy mayor of the City of Marion, I have a fair bit of experience with the training and development side of things in local government. Often there was a real reluctance on the part of council to encourage local councillors (who were my colleagues) to partake of training and development opportunities, and there are certainly plenty of opportunities provided either by the Local Government Association or other training providers along the way. It did seem there was a real reluctance among elected members, partly because of the time and effort that was required, to actually go down the path of doing voluntary training and development. I do think it is very important for elected members to have a mandatory duty to undertake training and development, and for this to be enshrined in legislation is probably a good idea.

I will take the opportunity, while we have the Local Government Act open, to make a few other comments about local government in South Australia, many of which are connected with this idea of capacity, training and development for elected members. I note that when the close of rolls for the upcoming local government elections occurred a couple of weeks ago, I decided to go through the list of nominations. I was taken aback by the large number of councils, particularly metropolitan councils, where the position of mayor was actually uncontested going into these local government elections.

These councils include: the City of Marion; the City of West Torrens; the City of Playford; the City of Norwood, Payneham & St Peters; the City of Burnside; Mount Barker council; and the City of Prospect. Going into the regional areas, they include: the Barossa Council, Berri council, Ceduna council, Grant council, Karoonda East Murray council, Loxton Waikerie council, Robe council and Wakefield council. I think it really is a matter of concern that so many councils have had the mayoral position uncontested going into these elections.

I am not criticising the current incumbents or those who entered those positions uncontested; it is not for me to look at their capacity to do the role. I guess my problem is that these people enter this position in a highly unaccountable fashion. When you do not have an election, you do not get to lay out a vision, you do not need to communicate to your community goals and priorities for what you will actually do in that position.

Again, that is not a reflection on those individuals who have taken on the mayoral roles in those council areas but, rather, it is a reflection on our local democracy that in many councils—and there are hundreds of thousands of South Australians encompassed in those councils that I just read out. Those people will not be able to go to the polls and select someone. They will not be able to weigh up the options between different candidates for mayor. Also, they will not be able to fully hold mayors to account during the incoming term, because they have nothing to benchmark against in terms of things that those people would have pledged to fulfil if they had gone through a council election process. I think that is quite disappointing.

I do note that the Minister for Local Government is on record in this place saying that the government is very interested in introducing a comprehensive reform bill for local government in the first half of 2015. I really look forward to seeing what the local government minister and the state government opposite actually have on the table for local government. My view is that local government in South Australia, while operating fairly well as a whole, is still operating within the bounds of a 1970s or 1980s legislative framework, when actually the role of local government in 2014 is a much more complex beast: its responsibilities are much more substantial than even at the beginning of the turn of the century. I really look forward to seeing what the government has in terms of recommendations for the reform, what they will bring to community consultation, what they will bring to consultation with local governments and what they will work on with the opposition.

There are some things that I think should be canvassed. I am not saying this is my specific position and it is certainly not a position of the Liberal Party of South Australia. What I think we need to be looking at and having a discussion with the South Australian community includes the size of councils. I am not saying that we necessarily need to go down the track of amalgamations, but what we do need to look at is where can councils strategically work better together, where do councils fit neatly together and, if it is not amalgamations necessarily, it is looking at how councils can work together better and how we can get a legislative framework in place which encourages that.

I am very interested in looking at the way councils raise revenue. The Liberal Party went to the last election with quite a controversial rate capping proposal. Again, while I am not necessarily advocating for that policy, I do think the way councils raise revenue needs to be seriously looked at in South Australia at the moment.

In my own electorate of Bright, I have two councils: the City of Holdfast Bay and the City of Marion. They operate the same general rating structure, but when you drill down into the rate in the dollar, you have a very different situation. If you live in the suburb of Kingston Park, which sits very neatly in the suburb of Marino but in two different council areas, there is a huge difference in what neighbours pay in rates.

I have one resident who lives in a street in Kingston Park, whose house is probably worth around about $900,000. Next door, there is a house in the suburb of Marino. The houses are actually joined together, and that house is also worth about $900,000. The difference in the annual rates bill for those two properties is over $700, and that is a situation that I think cannot go on in my community. Not only does it create a situation of envy, but it is not practical for two neighbouring households to pay such a dramatic difference in their annual rates revenue.

I think something we need to have a real discussion about in South Australia in terms of local government—and it is not something that sits ideologically very well with me—is the idea of compulsory voting for local government elections. Normally, it is not something that I would support, but I do think when you have a situation where, in metropolitan Adelaide, local government turnout is sitting at 25 to 30 per cent, it creates a situation where local government is very much a poor cousin to the federal and state tiers of government.

How can you take local government in this state seriously when state and federal governments sit in a compulsory voting system but local government does not? It really emphasises and underpins an irrelevancy of local government. I think that is really an unfortunate thing because local government is definitely not an irrelevant tier of government but, with a different voting system in place, I think local government is suffering for the non-compulsory voting environment in local government elections.

I also have a concern about the general capacity of local government and that is going right to elected members in local government. Somebody can potentially get elected with a couple of hundred votes from the local bowling club or can get a little group of local residents around them because they have a particular gripe about an issue. In some councils, you only need a couple of hundred votes to get on local government. That concerns me, and I think if we did have a serious discussion about whether or not to have compulsory voting in local government, we could then have a discussion about capacity of elected members as well. Would compulsory voting actually enable us to have overall greater capacity amongst our elected members? I am beginning to think that that would be the case.

Then there is the situation, which comes back, potentially, to the size of local government areas in South Australia, of the economic role of local government. I often think that local governments in South Australia do not necessarily see themselves as drivers of economic development when actually I think they absolutely are and it is a very important role of local government. Elected members need to see their role as economic developers and tailor their policies and the way they work to do that. Again, that will require working across boundaries and working regionally and not just internally in our fairly small local government areas within Adelaide.

I can count at least three major projects in my own electorate that are currently held up by local government red tape. I think sometimes people blame the state government planning system for this sort of thing, but I actually believe local government can often lead to very significant delays in the start-up time of economic projects. I have three totalling probably about $150 million or $200 million in my electorate at the moment, and I think it is because local governments in my community do not actually see themselves as drivers and catalysts of economic growth, and they need to be able to do that.

Those are just some of my thoughts about local government in this state at the moment. I think we have a great opportunity, hopefully, as the local government minister has suggested in this place, to look at reform of local government in South Australia in the first half of 2015. I really hope that the government does come forward with a raft of reforms, looks at the local government excellence panel that was led by Mr Crafter over the last couple of years, looks at those recommendations and uses them as something of a foundation for reforming our third tier of government.

It is a tier of government which very much has the potential to be the best and most functional tier of government. It is the most local tier of government and has the ability to most effectively impact the lives of South Australians but, too often, because of bureaucracy and because of capacity issues, it does not fulfil that potential to be the best tier of government in this nation and, too often, it is in fact the worst.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (17:15): Can I say first of all, on behalf on the minister, that I am sure he is disappointed that he has not been able to listen to the contributions, but I am sure he would equally welcome the fact that there has been support throughout the room for this measure. I say, on his behalf, thank you to those who have spoken. I am not exactly sure what is appropriate for me to do, given that I am not technically the minister, so—

The Hon. P. Caica: Whatever you want, John.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Whatever I want?

The Hon. P. Caica: Yes, you can do whatever you want.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Excellent. Can I just say in parenthesis that what I am about to say is entirely my personal opinion and has no substance or value otherwise, or perhaps even because of that. I just want to say a couple of things.

Although it may not have looked like it, I did listen to the member for Bright's contribution. I want to say that I have noticed that the member for Bright, amongst other new members, including the member for Reynell, the member for Schubert and the member for Hartley too, whose birthday it was yesterday, and others in the chamber have been very active contributors in this place. I encourage them to do that. The other great thing you have that some people who have been here much longer than you, and might sit more or less directly in front of where you are sitting, although slightly to your left, and might not be here presently—

Mr Gardner: Just remember that provocation brings response.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Okay. I was just going to say that all of you gentlemen have the great virtue of brevity, precision and compelling argument. I just draw that to your attention.

Compulsory voting is an old chestnut that has been floating around forever and quite possibly will float around for ever. It has been raised by the member for Bright. All I can say is there are contending schools of thought here. Some might say that part of the reason that the local government system in New South Wales appears to be permeated by unsavoury activities has something to do with compulsory voting which, in turn, has some bizarre attraction to organised political groups, but who can say? I do not know.

The other point made by the member for Bright about local government being a driver of economic growth is actually a very good point. Every level of government, whether it is state, federal or local government, should be looking for ways in which they can facilitate and enable development, growth, employment and economic activity in the state. If there are any contributions that the member for Bright or others might wish to make to my ministerial colleague in the course of further conversations about this matter over the next few months, I am sure he would be very interested to engage with you on that topic of economic development being something that councils focus upon and regard as being part of their core objective.

Another conundrum we have when we speak of local government is that we have 68 entities, and they are enormously diverse in terms of their capabilities, their size, their rate base and so on. If you look at a large metropolitan council like Onkaparinga, Port Adelaide Enfield or Charles Sturt, they are reasonably large financial enterprises with quite large staff complements that are capable of having in-house skills of quite a high level. Then at the other end of the spectrum, for example somewhere on Eyre Peninsula where you might have Elliston, Tumby Bay or some place like that, and it is no disrespect to those places, when you have a rate base of 50¢ a year, it is pretty hard to have a huge galaxy of stars working for you and things happening.

These are some of the challenges for local government, and one of the inherent complexities about this is that we are not dealing with a series of entities of similar size and complexity. We are certainly not dealing with anything that is remotely like Brisbane City Council, so maybe one day a conversation about that scale issue at some level needs to be had, whether it is in terms of the actual boundaries of these things or whether is it in terms of an agglomeration of functions into some super council-based thing which does, I think, happen to some extent in respect of waste collection already, which is fine.

I think it is a fascinating topic. There are lots and lots of issues that could be explored and no doubt will be, and I do know that the minister is a passionate believer in and enthusiast for local government having had a career himself in local government.

Mr Griffiths: As mayor of Port Pirie.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As mayor of Port Pirie indeed. I am sure he will be very keen to talk to all members about these issues. Again, I thank all members for their contributions. I am sure the minister will be appreciative of the fact that this matter has received the unanimous support of the parliament. I thank everyone for their remarks.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (17:22): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.