Local Government (Accountability and Governance) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 July 2015.)

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (16:50): I confirm that I will be the opposition's lead speaker on the bill. This bill was introduced by the minister on 1 July 2015, and I do put on the record my thanks to the minister and his staff for the fact that I had probably three briefing opportunities before that, probably starting a good three months before the introduction of the bill. The minister and his staff provided me with, shall I say, every opportunity to ask any question I thought could be relevant to the bill and to seek comment and feedback on it.

I do note that from the draft version of the bill that was shown to me that there have been some changes which are as a result of some additional consultation with primarily the Local Government Association, and there were some amendments tabled by the minister yesterday, I think, and presented to the house. I will confirm that the opposition does support the legislation. There is no great challenge on that, but I will be, though, as part of my contribution, just raising some points in which I seek some comments back from the minister and asking some questions, and there will be a need also to go into committee to ask some detailed questions about individual clauses, so we might be here for a little while.

I got the legislation from the minister, and I note that quite often in the chamber he has commented on the fact (and what I took as being) that a wideranging review of the Local Government Act would be undertaken. When the first opportunity to look at this legislation came through I thought, 'It's not quite at the same level that I thought it would be', and it is not, either, and the minister acknowledges that. I note that he has given a commitment for a far more substantial review of the Local Government Act to occur sometime in 2016.

The Hon. G.G. Brock interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes; and the minister confirms across the chamber now that we will be involved in discussions about that, and I appreciate the openness with which he has discussions with me on a variety of things. The bill, as I said, is what I would classify as relatively lower level but which still covers important issues. Indeed, it comes back from quite a high level of review that has been undertaken by the Ombudsman and the ICAC commissioner on matters which have been raised with them and which were appropriate for the local government industry, shall I say, to look at, and the minister has done so.

A former senior officer of the Local Government Association who is no longer there commented to me that, in the main, the majority of it could have been introduced sometime ago, not necessarily during the minister's time but in the time of those who predated him as a minister. However, there was not an opportunity before the 2014 state election for that to occur, so, we have it now.

The opposition has considered a discussion paper on it. I put it to the opposition on 14 July and the position was agreed to. There is, I think, one other member, maybe, who might speak on it, but that is about all. I therefore do not necessarily see the majority of the bill as contentious, and it is based on implementing good practice so it is something I do very much support. I have noted and I will make comments at this early stage on it that in the draft that was provided to me there were references to the remission available to non-government organisations that undertook community housing associations.

I know that the minister has been asked a question in the chamber about this and I know that there has been some publicity of the fact that the bill that came in was different to the draft that went out. The Local Government Association and member councils have contacted members of parliament about that, but I do note that, as part of the Attorney's response to a question that I posed to the minister about this particular clause not being included, the Attorney has given a commitment that is part of the ongoing discussions and the negotiations about transfers that are occurring.

It is, though, responsible for the opposition to ensure that a level of concern is put on the record about what was seen as a relatively late change not long before (or in fact it might have been on the day of) the introduction of the bill. That occurs through a variety of means that I do not fully know about, but I hope one day to have the opportunity to have discussions at that level that occurs between ministers.

While it is not the minister's direct responsibility, it is the government's responsibility to ensure that the discussions occur and that a transparency and openness occurs in the negotiations and not just allow the NGOs to take over the control and management of these homes, which perform very important tasks for a large number of people across South Australia. There is the potential for a significant number of properties to be transferred, with local government indicating the potential risk of some $10 million in the quantum, as I understand it, on the basis of all being transferred, across a variety of councils, predominantly in metropolitan areas but, in some individual cases on quite a high amount of dollars.

That is not to say that the NGOs will not make sure that they operate the management of the homes in a most efficient way. I respect that, but for the local government authorities that have had these Housing SA properties and will continue to have these properties within their council areas for which full rates have been paid as part of its Housing SA control and ownership, having that revenue removed puts an increased burden on the service provision for that council and other ratepayers. I take it that the minister will continue to ensure that negotiations occur, even though another minister has responsibility for it.

As we go through the clauses, it is fair to say, minister, that I will be putting on the record some of the issues raised by the Local Government Association about clause 13 which amends section 70 which relates to inspection of register. I might just take the opportunity to put into the Hansard the words that were provided to me and to other members of parliament, by the Local Government Association, although they were, in the main, members of the other place. A copy was also provided to the minister, signed off by Mr Mark Searle, the Acting CEO of the Local Government Association. It is dated 1 July and in relation to clause 13 and the intention to amend section 70, it states:

Councils are adamantly opposed to the proposal to require Council Members to publish particular personal details on a website. The proposal in clause 12, to amend section 70 of the Local Government Act, will require individual Council Members to publish on the web:

Income source

Name of any political party, political association, or trade or professional organisation

Gifts received that are required to be declared in the register of interests.

It goes on to say:

Local Government is not opposed to disclosure in general, but the requirement to put personal information on a website is strongly opposed by Councils. Local Government has difficulty in attracting quality candidates for election and this type of requirement places a heavy imposition on people who are, unlike State and Commonwealth members of Parliament, only volunteers.

The [Local Government Association] is of the opinion that there needs to be some safeguards against the potential misuse of information contained in the Register and is most concerned to protect the personal security of Council Members. Publication of material on the internet can take on a life of its own—

We hear stories about that. It does occur and that was a great interjection made by the member for Wright, I think, today about the internet. That was a funny one.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: That was a compliment to you, actually—I liked the words of an interjection from the member for Wright today about the internet.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: About someone being on the internet when they shouldn't.

Mr GRIFFITHS: We shan't reflect upon the personalities involved, but—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Digance): Is this where I say 'order'?

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: It's entirely up to you.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes. It does go to demonstrate the issues associated with it. I repeat:

Publication of material on the internet can take on a life of its own and remain in the public domain long after it becomes out of date or after a member has left office. It is also readily accessible information of a personal nature that has the potential to be misused. The LGA is therefore seeking your assistance to delete or amend this proposal in the bill.

The LGA supports providing easier access to the information on the Register of Interests by deleting the requirement for a person to make a written application. The LGA also supports making similar information available about all candidates for office, not just sitting members of councils.

We will get to that when we actually get to the clauses, but I thought it was important, at this early stage, to put that on the Hansard.

Other noteworthy components of the bill include conflicts of interest and confidentiality provisions. I support those completely; it is important for the public to have faith in the fact that the people who choose to nominate themselves to represent them in forums—local, state or federal government—disclose where their interests might be, and that the community can have confidence in that fact.

It is interesting—and there will be some questions about this—that there is the creation of two categories of conflict of interest, with actual and perceived and material. I can see that it is necessary to create the two distinctions, but I will be seeking some details on how the definitions work and what level of guidelines have been prepared to assist people in making that determination, because it is a responsibility that rests upon the individual to ensure they do the right thing. Having previously worked in local government, I know that there are occasions when an issue from personal history might have been discussed, and you have the thought, 'Is there a level of conflict that potentially exists?' There will be some improvements created through the bill, there is no doubt about that, but I will be seeking some detail.

I do understand that part of the suggestion from the Ombudsman about this was a reflection upon an investigation undertaken by the Ombudsman on the fact that three councillors from Yorke Peninsula Council—members I know—had voted upon a matter that was put to them by a company in regard to some land use issues. As I understand it, the Ombudsman's investigation was that there was no case to respond to—and I am being a bit careful with my words there—but when it was mentioned to me in the first instance it was an issue of concern. So I am pleased that the council reviewed this within a very short period and that some action took place on that, because there were some concerns put to me by the wider community about the involvement of the three members—who are all high quality people as well—in that. That is enough said on that issue.

It would be an improvement opportunity. I also believe that this is the minister's first bill; minister, it is your first bill to be introduced into the parliament?

The Hon. G.G. Brock: Yes.

Mr GRIFFITHS: So it is good from that practical sense, and I acknowledge that the minister has also had involvement in local government for a long time in an elected member role, so he understands the process of how it works and the need to ensure that the meetings and operations of council run as effectively as possible.

I note that there are also some amendments regarding informal gatherings of councils that occur, and I reflect upon the fact that this is an issue that is raised with me a little now. Indeed, it is my observation that when those informal discussions occur all involved understand that there are to be no decisions as an outcome from it. The challenge I have with considering that, though, is that when you talk in a more informal sense about issues, you basically form an opinion. A direct decision may not actually be made, but it certainly helps those who will have to vote during the formal part of a meeting about what the issues are. That is what the system is designed to do; however, there are issues that have been put to me about public accessibility to those discussions. We will talk about that at a later date.

I look forward to the passage of the bill. We will not be here for days and days talking about it. It is not necessarily long in its nature; it is, though, important to improvements in the way in which local government responds, acts and is seen by the community.

I commend the minister for bringing the bill before the house and I sincerely want to thank him for the many approaches he has made to me and the opportunities to talk about it to ensure that there is a level of bipartisanship that exists in this particular portfolio and to ensure that the outcome is a positive one. I do set up the scene though in looking forward to the more lengthy debate we will have next year, as long as I am still the shadow minister, about local government and what is occurring there. I think that will be a good experience for both of us. So, I look forward to the passage of the bill.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (17:06): The Local Government (Accountability and Governance) Amendment Bill seeks to improve local government accountability and governance and is about implementing recommendations made by the Ombudsman to achieve a more consistent and contemporary legislative framework for local government to operate under. It is also, as I remember when the minister introduced the bill, to manage issues around conflict of interest and the appropriate way these are managed. I note that we have to declare any conflicts of interest that we may have in this house, and the other members in the other place.

These amendments are considered necessary because of reasonable confusion amongst council members and councillors interpreting the current provisions of the act. I note that, with elections for local government only being last year, there were many new members elected into office. In fact, some councils had at least half of their members replaced, so there were a lot of new people into local government, which is good to see, but obviously there needs to be a lot of training provided and a lot of the requirements of being a local government member put to these new people.

The issue was around legal opinion on the interpretation of the act. The whole point of this bill is to improve transparency and greater disclosure of actual and potential conflicts of interest. As we know, when we talk about matters in line with what we do, there is a need to keep these provisions in line with what the public expect, what public policy expects, and obviously with regard to the lines of public integrity.

Late last year, not long after the council elections, the personal interests discussion paper for council members was released. This was promoting discussions about the reform of the conflict of interest provisions of the act. It was based on similar legislation in the Queensland Local Government Act 2009. This indicated that there was significant support for gaining clarity amongst these provisions, also with regard to routine matters and also in seeking to find a better way to define the difference between actual and perceived conflicts of interest.

There have been quite a few responses in regard to this bill, including from the Ombudsman, the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption, the Crown Solicitor, the Local Government Association, and councils have also put in contributions towards the set-up of this bill. What is happening as part of that debate is the fundamental principle that council members must always consider the public interest in any decisions or actions taken in their role as a council member. The private interests of the member must never prevail over the public interest in that context.

I note that there can be difficulties for local members of government, because they could be significant businesspeople in the council that they represent, they could have large farm holdings or they could have properties that may be in a zone that is either up for rezoning for redevelopment over the next couple of years and whether there are any issues around whether some of that land could potentially be fast-tracked, or they could be debating something in local government that relates directly to their business. For example, they could be an earthmoving contractor with a council that actually gets that work done—maybe the hiring of a D8 bulldozer or a Komatsu or something similar—

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: A little one.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, a little one—to raise rubble, or other services that could be contracted out. So there are a significant number of issues that people need to contend with. I think the aim of this bill is to make sure that people are not confused, because there would be people concerned about whether they are making the right or wrong decision and declaring what they need to.

The current act requires this change, because it has only one category of conflict of interest and it only provides a council member with one course of action when dealing with it, and that is to declare the interest and leave the meeting. The act obviously does not provide for a councillor to declare potential conflicts of interest. What this bill will do, if it comes into law, is to determine what are material conflicts of interest, and that is where a member may gain a benefit or suffer a loss, depending on the outcome of the consideration of a certain matter at the meeting. Obviously the intent of the bill is to catch most potential conflicts in this category. In regard to what has happened in the past, this bill also requires a member who has a material conflict of interest to declare that interest and to leave the meeting while the matter is discussed and voted on.

There are obviously proposals for serious penalties for a breach of material conflict, and these penalties can go up to $15,000 or four years' imprisonment. The idea with this bill is to send a very clear message that these are serious matters and must be treated accordingly. The bill also discusses the fact that council members are able to discuss matters of ordinary business for the council, even if they could technically have a material interest in the matter, so it is contained in the bill how to get around that potential conflict of interest.

We all pay council rates, pretty well, and council members are also ratepayers. You would like to think that, for the greater good, all councillors would be part of that debate, because that is one of the fundamental ways that councils raise their funds. Obviously, that is only a certain percentage of the funds councils raise, but they need to get other funds from grants to make everything work at the local government level.

Another category of potential conflicts are the actual and perceived conflicts which are established by this bill and these are matters that are considered to be of a less serious nature than material conflicts. These are conflicts that should be disclosed and documented. These must be matters that are of less significance for a member and it may be in regard to a non-financial or a minor gain or loss.

The bill also talks about exclusions which can be qualified where a council member might have an association with a community group or a sporting club, is a member of a political party, has involvement with a local school or has been nominated by the council as a member of a board, but this exclusion will not be in place every time and this would still need the councillor to recognise whether they have an actual conflict of interest or a perceived conflict of interest. This has been supported and recommended by the Ombudsman, supported by the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption and the Local Government Association. These concepts are well known, as we know in this place at the state level, in administrative law, across the country and in other jurisdictions.

I would like to think that in all matters as they are here and at local government level, where many good people give up valuable time whether it is once a month or twice a month and sometimes more often than that, depending on whether they have special committee meetings to have debate, that we should have the appropriate legislation in place so that they can operate effectively and do the grunt work that happens at ground level with our local governments.

I applaud all our local governments for the work that they do at the local delivery level and it is far more than used to be said was roads, rates and rubbish. They do far more than that now in operating, whether it is our towns in our electorates or working around issues of whether you want to build a shed on a farm property or dog and cat management.

We had a select committee on dogs and cats in this place several years ago and I was part of that select committee. Certainly, as a local member of parliament—and I think every member in this place would have the same thing happen—many people come to you about local government matters. They are not really your purview, but I certainly have a policy that if they come to me I have to tell my local council, whichever one it may be, what is going on, have a discussion and maybe have a meeting. I certainly have, as many members do, regular meetings with council mayors and CEOs so that you can have that good discussion around what is happening.

I can recall a meeting only recently with one of the councils in my electorate regarding development issues and it is one of the issues that comes up quite often. There are many people with property, whether it is a small farming property or even a larger farming property, on the edge of somewhere like the main city area of Murray Bridge that they want to see rezoned so that they can not only capitalise on that rezoning but also reduce the size of the block which they are having to look after and which they may have owned for 30 or 40 years.

It is good to have that relationship with councils and get the planning staff in as well because it is one of the those areas that there is much debate and it can get very robust. It is just good to get an idea of how it works at the local government level with regard to that and sometimes, as we find along the way, it is not that straightforward.

This bill will help bring up to speed the accountability of councillors and I hope it gives local government and councils the clarity that they need, especially with the many new councillors who have come on board since the last election. They have made a commitment for four years. I commend them all for all the work they do. It can be difficult and frustrating and keep them out late at night but I know they do it for the service of their communities and they do a great job.

Mr SPEIRS (Bright) (17:20): I too rise to make some brief comment on the Local Government (Accountability and Governance) Amendment Bill 2015. Members of this place, in particular, the minister, would know that I have an interest in local government, an interest forged through my involvement in community and also through several years as a local councillor and deputy mayor in the City of Marion.

This is a bill that I do support. I have often said here that I believe that local government has the capacity to be both the best and the worst tier of government—the best because it has an ability to connect with local communities in a very direct way and impact people's lives in a direct and rapid way, but also the worst because when local government drifts towards dysfunction that can be felt in a very immediate way in communities. I think we have seen that from time to time in South Australia and in other jurisdictions in Australia when local governments drift towards dysfunction; and there is no benefit in that happening for anyone, not the councillors involved, the administrations involved or the communities ultimately impacted by that dysfunction.

I have spoken often in this place about the need for local government to professionalise and to develop the capacity of local government in this state, capacity which I think can only be developed and improved through significant reform. That reform has to be led by the state government because, of course, in South Australia, and in all parts of Australia, local government is essentially an instrument created by state governments. It is imperative that the state government and whichever party is in power has the appetite for reform and is keen to continually look at ways that we can evolve local government and give it the capacity it needs.

As the member for Hammond mentioned and as other members would know, local government is far more complex in 2015 than it was five, 10 or 15 years ago and, certainly, a few decades ago when we talked about local government we were talking about rates, roads and rubbish and they are far more complex in 2015. That has, in my view, resulted in the need for councils to increase their capacity particularly around their governance and, particularly, the capacity of elected members.

From my own experience in local government and from observing perhaps more broadly across a number of local governments since entering state parliament, I would say that the capacity of elected members has not necessarily progressed with the same speed as the complexity of that third tier of government. As it has become more complex, I do not feel that elected members' capacity has necessarily kept apace with that. I think there is a role for the state government in looking at ways that we can enhance the capacity of elected members.

I am very interested in looking at compulsory voting. I think that is something we should be looking at with regard to local government—at least having the discussion about it. When you have compulsory voting at state government and federal government level, you are essentially saying to the community, and even elected members, that the third tier of government is less important because the community is not compelled to participate in elections and participate and interact with that sector in the same way that they are compelled to with state and federal governments. I do not know whether that is the actual case; it is certainly the perceived case by having federal and state as compulsory voting and local government as not being compulsory. I come across people often in the community, particularly younger people, who dismiss local government, and a big part of that is because they do not need to vote. That is a conversation I would like to have.

I think that when you are talking about capacity and increasing the capacity of elected members you do need to look at how they are elected and you need to look at the size and scale of councils and you need to look at ways in which you can encourage good people to be involved in local government. With respect to the size of local governments, the two local councils I know most intimately are, obviously, the City of Marion (because of my role on that council) but also the City of Holdfast Bay (because my electorate is split pretty much fifty-fifty between the cities of Marion and Holdfast Bay), and they have respectively budgets of about $75 million in the case of Marion and about $50 million in the case of Holdfast Bay.

If those were companies, if those were private businesses, you could imagine the level of empowerment that their boards would have, the skills required on their boards and they would likely be floated on the Australian Stock Exchange and have fairly significant management structures and governance in place. They certainly would not have the level of capacity that we have with elected members on local government. I think that there is a tension between getting the right elected members, getting elected members with the capacity and also staying true to grassroots democracy, which is also very important.

In the City of Marion we attempted to do that by blending our elected member body with a series of independent members, people like Chris Daniels, the ecologist; Marty Gauvin, the entrepreneur; John Bastian, who is well known in business circles in South Australia; and Darren Bilsborough, an infrastructure expert.

We brought these people on board in order to help the council with its strategic thinking through our Strategic Directions Committee. All councils are required to have a strategic directions committee of some sort, but our use of independent members in the City of Marion was quite interesting and something that did help us think more in that complex space.

I mention that, I make those comments about the complexity of local government, because I do support the government's intent in this bill to look at accountability and governance and the need to make sure that it just tightens up some of the governance frameworks and the accountability mechanisms, particularly around conflict of interest. We see the government fleshing out the definitions of conflicts of interest, looking at material conflicts of interest and perceived conflicts of interest and actually doing a bit more work in a legislative sense around those definitions, and I think providing councils with much more of a policy framework, a legislative framework around which to work with elected members around those conflicts of interest.

I think that in local government, more so than other tiers of government, you are probably more likely to come across particularly perceived conflicts of interest, so the work in a legislative sense around conflicts of interest has to be ramped up a bit for local government because I do think there is space for confusion. The substantial class test, which is used to determine conflicts of interest legally, is a bit more difficult in local government because elected members in local government are often dealing with things that are part of their day-to-day lives, whether it is a park down the street or a sporting club that they use, or a sporting club where they gain most of their votes from, and things like that.

Local government members, local councillors, are much more likely to be embedded in the immediate community that they represent, because wards are smaller in population and focused on particular communities, perhaps more so than state government and certainly more so than federal government. These things do perhaps make conflicts of interest in the local government space a little more difficult to deal with. I commend the government's work to tighten this up, to try to create more of a legislative framework around it and to improve the openness, accountability and transparency of local government and create an environment where local councillors and the administration teams which are supporting them have a clearer map of what is the correct thing to do here.

In closing, I do commend this bill to the house. I look forward to seeing it supported and passed into law and I would encourage the government and the minister to keep thinking about local government reform, be bold about local government reform and think about local government reform alongside the planning laws which the Deputy Premier and planning minister introduced into state parliament yesterday. Continual local government reform is very important for this state, from both a sense of community development and, very importantly, from the point of view of economic development.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK (Frome—Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Local Government) (17:31): First, I thank all members on the other side for their contributions to the debate on this bill and also the shadow minister for his comments earlier on. It is good to be able to have this bipartisan discussion on bills. Just to reiterate, this bill seeks to strengthen accountability and governance in local government and is a collation of improvements that have been proposed over the past few years, as well as some provisions that I have considered since becoming the Minister for Local Government.

Many of the provisions in this bill have come at the request of the Local Government Association, the ICAC commissioner and the Ombudsman. While various provisions in this bill will be of particular importance to elected members and council management, the reform of the conflict of interest provisions is of more general significance.

During the course of the second reading debate, members raised issues and perspectives which can be addressed in a more focused way during the committee stage of this bill. I will, however, make further comment now in relation to two matters, the first being the management and transferring of Housing SA stock to community housing providers and the second being the measure of this bill that requires part of the members' register of interest to be published on a website.

Most members are aware that, under section 161 of the Local Government Act 1999, community service organisations that provide community housing are eligible for a 75 per cent rebate on council rates. Former Housing Trust properties did not receive the council rate rebate, with full council rates being payable by the relevant state agency. I am advised that, in conjunction with the federal government, the state government has approved the transfer of approximately 5,000 Housing Trust properties to the community housing sector with about 1,100 of those properties currently in the process of being transferred.

The Local Government Association has suggested that if all the transferred properties were immediately eligible for the 75 per cent rate rebate, this could deliver a significant revenue shock to the affected councils. My understanding is that a previous minister responsible for social housing policy agreed to remove the 75 per cent rate rebate eligibility through contractual arrangements with the community housing providers for the first 1,100 homes to be transferred.

A draft of this bill was used in consultation ahead of introduction to parliament and it included a proposal to amend the current section 161 as one way of providing an element of certainty for councils with regard to eligibility for the rebate. In the process of finalising the bill for introduction to the parliament, the Minister for Housing and Urban Development advised that he intends to continue to consider the question of the application of council rate rebates on a case-by-case basis through contractual arrangements with community housing providers.

The Minister for Housing and Urban Development has also given undertakings to work with the affected councils and the Local Government Association to discuss the terms of any future transfers of Housing SA properties to the non-government sector. I have received correspondence from the Minister for Housing and Urban Development, who sees Housing Trust stock transfers to the NGOs as an important part of improving social and affordable housing. I quote a portion of that from the minister:

My position is to enable the rates rebate to form part of the contractual negotiations on a case by case basis that considers both benefit and cost for each local council and the community. As the Minister for Housing and Urban Development, I am committed to continue working with the Local Government Association and councils regarding the terms of transfer for the next 3,900 homes to ensure the impacts are managed and the opportunities for the mutual benefit of vulnerable people, local communities and local government are created.

It is also my understanding that the Local Government Association has been in discussion with Renewal SA about how this process can be effectively used. In addition to requiring parts of the elected member register to be published on a website, my view is that this is not only in keeping with other measures of this bill that seek to improve transparency and accountability. I think it also provides a mechanism for disclosing relevant interests in a way that meets contemporary community expectations for access to this kind of information.

In bringing the debate to a close, I draw members' attention to the government amendments that have been filed. These relatively minor adjustments to the bill were requested by the Local Government Association and can be dealt with, if necessary, during the committee stage. Once again I thank members for their contribution. I also thank the Local Government Association, the ICAC commissioner, the Ombudsman, everyone from the Office of Local Government and, in particular, my staff, for their invaluable assistance in the preparation of this bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I note that in the amendments to clause 4 it refers to interpretation and the definition of 'relative', where you have included stepmother, stepfather, stepson and stepdaughter or any member of a person's family who resides in the member's household. Can you give me the reason those additional interpretations have been used?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: This is an amendment that expands the definition of relative to include stepson, stepdaughter, stepfather, stepmother or other member of the person's family who resides in the member's household. It is considered that the current definition of relative is too narrow in relation to conflicts of interest that are required to be declared, so the intention is to update the act to reflect contemporary definitions of the term 'relative'.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I must admit that I thought it also related to the conflict of interest provisions. I respect the fact that my next question is not necessarily the minister's responsibility, but is it an expectation that when other pieces of legislation are debated that have a definition of 'relative' they will be changed in a similar way to include these additional relationships?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: That will be in consultation with the councils, the Local Government Association, and also the Ombudsman.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Sorry, that was not my question. Other legislation that comes before the parliament that has a definition of 'relative', will that be changed to include these sorts of provisions as well?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Are you talking about the conflict of interest at this particular point or any legislation? We will still be going through the consultation with the LGA and it will be dealt with in the same way.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I will not occupy the committee's time for long, but I was interested in the fact that families are much broader in nature now than what they once were. I understand that, but I suppose my question relates to a wider perspective on all legislation that includes the definition. It is not your responsibility, because they are other members' responsibilities, but is this part of some uniformity that would exist within government legislation in the future about changing the definition?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: No; this will only relate to the Local Government Act provisions. That is what we are talking about at the moment.

Mr GRIFFITHS: If I could move forward then, otherwise we will be here for a long time talking about that bit. I note that at about the middle of the page it states, 'Section 4—after subsection (1) insert:' and then, 'For the purposes of this Act, public notice is given if', and then there is some definition that is attached to that. Can you explain to me: if that is purely around the basis of bringing a website into public notice, what the reason was to create that amendment?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: This is an amendment that requires that the publication of a public notice should include a relevant website. It also amends the requirement for publication in a newspaper circulating within the state so that it is circulating within the area of the relevant council. Currently, the public notice refers only to that published in print. The intention is to reflect contemporary expectations that information is available on the internet, while balancing the high cost of advertising in statewide newspapers with the need to provide the relevant and requisite notice.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I indicate that I appreciate the minister's responses and I am prepared to now support clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7.

Clause passed.

Clauses 5 to 7 passed.

Clause 8.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, public consultation policies, this one interests me, particularly as public consultation will be key when it comes to the development bill that is going to be debated in a couple of weeks time. It is important for me to actually understand that what the intention of this is is to not only improve the way in which the community can be aware of what the policy is, and that is what it seems to be by virtue of the fact that publication of the notice has to be included, but does this give you confidence that what is going to be here now is actually a best case example of what public consultation is, or is there still a lot of work to do on the actual policy that exists within individual councils also?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Section 50, which is (4)(a), is the amendment that requires publication of a council's public consultation policy on a website determined by the chief executive officer. The update of the act has been undertaken to reflect community progression to using the internet to access the information.

Mr GRIFFITHS: For example, I am a bit of an old-fashioned person but I know there are many members and many organisations, and the LGA itself uses Twitter and Facebook and that sort of stuff. Do you think that necessarily extends to the fact that in trying to encourage a younger generation of people to be interested in local government this would have been an opportune time to consider including those sorts of provisions in it, or indeed is what is in here, by definition of a website determined by the chief executive officer, does that provide the scope for requirement for those methods to be used, for the policies to be available?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am old fashioned. I am not up with Twitter and Instagram, or whatever it is. This is trying to get the best opportunities for communication consultation out there. We want the best practice guidelines developed with the LGA and with councils across the state, and that will include, from each council, the best modern technology that is available for them, bearing in mind that there are still people like myself who are old-fashioned.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I understand that, so can I assume that, where the term 'website' is used, that is inclusive of these other options also, or is that an individual policy, council by council?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I have just been advised that it is individual policy, council by council.

Clause passed.

Clauses 9 and 10 passed.

Clause 11.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Clause 11 refers to the substitution of section 67. I am bit intrigued by new subsection (2) where it provides:

It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) to prove that the member did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to have known, of the relevant change or variation.

I wonder if the minister is able to put that in a more easily understood version of the English language and give an example of it.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: This is an amendment that requires that a change or variation to the information appearing on the register of interest must be updated within one month of the change or variation by notice to the chief executive officer. It carries a maximum penalty of $10,000, but with a defence if the council member did not know and could not reasonably be expected to have known of the change or variation. This was a recommendation of the Ombudsman and it aims to increase transparency and accountability by requiring that such information is updated regularly. An example is that a daughter did not advise the member of a change, so that is one of the issues. It is a standard clause for matters that a member could not be reasonably expected to know, just to safeguard the member.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I can understand, with the definition of family members, that it becomes a bit more inclusive now, so potentially it is. I wanted to ensure that there was some form of record in the Hansard about that. I accept the minister's explanation on that and I can understand the reasoning for it.

Clause passed.

Clause 12.

Mr GRIFFITHS: This one is easy, minister. I note that it refers to amendments to section 68 and it provides: 'Despite this Division and Schedule 3'—and this is the issue for me—'if the chief executive officer is satisfied…'. That is an objective thing to me. It always concerns me when legislation includes objective assessments to be undertaken at any level, and I think that is where the potential exists for some trouble to occur. Given that this is your amendment, minister, can you give me an outline of why those particular words were chosen?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Are you talking about section 68?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I wanted to double-check what we are talking about because we have another one, inspection of register, at section 70. This is an amendment that ensures that a similar mechanism applies as to that in relation to an assessment record, in that the chief executive officer may suppress an address, if requested, or must, if it is suppressed on the electoral roll, bearing in mind that some are not on the electoral roll. There is currently no mechanism available in the act for withholding the address of a person from the public if circumstances warrant it.

While accountability and transparency are integral to good governance, as we have all mentioned, there are situations where someone may not want their personal address disclosed; for example, a police officer. The intention is that this enables any personal safety concerns to be met.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I can respect that a provision needs to be there. I understand that there will be circumstances where there is a very valid reason for it, but it is only my question on the fact that the word satisfied is there. That is why I am wondering if there are any form of guidelines that your office or the Local Government Association, who are working with you, will develop to set a template of what satisfied actually means, because we know that with elected members and chief executive officers, in this instance, on many occasions there are excellent relations that work well. On occasion that is not quite the case. I know it needs to be a little bit where you have to give consideration to issues and individual information that sometimes you do not want available to a wider community, but is there going to be some form of guidance available to ensure that the right decision is made?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Yes, this is the start and we are going to be working very closely with the LGA regarding the future direction of this, but there are times when we have to suppress somebody's name, as you indicated a minute ago, and the guidelines will be formulated and a template will be developed.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I confirm that I accept clause 12 based on that explanation from the minister.

Clause passed.

Clause 13.

Mr GRIFFITHS: This is one of the more contentious measures and it is the area in which during my second reading contribution I read out the words of the Local Government Association: they are opposed to it implacably, I think was the word. The minister in his second reading contribution has determined that this is the way he wants to operate. I am interested because it is a contentious one. I think other members who have made contributions also want to ensure there is a capacity in this for good quality people to nominate. The LGA put in writing its concern that this restriction will make it even harder to get people prepared to stand up before others and be elected. Is this an area that you are giving further consideration to or it is something that you will pursue and are not prepared to accept amendment?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: This is an amendment that enables members of the public to inspect or obtain a copy of the register of interest without having to submit a written application. It also requires certain details of the register to be published on a website determined by the chief executive officer of a council, as mentioned a minute ago. This was a recommendation of the Ombudsman and is in line with requirements of members of the House of Assembly. The aim is to increase transparency and accountability and meet contemporary expectations of information being available on the internet.

I know that the LGA is strongly opposed to this, and I am aware that the LGA board, and at least some councils, are opposed to this change to require selected parts of the council members' register of interest to be published on a website determined by the council chief executive officer. I make the following points in support of this amendment. Firstly, the community has a right to access relevant information to reassure them that their elected representatives in all levels of government are acting in the public interest.

Secondly, there is no change to the requirement for the contents of the register of interest to be publicly available. Currently, the complete register of interest is available to any member of the public for inspection on application at the council office. Furthermore, a member of the public is entitled to a paper copy of the register for a fee. Therefore, the current proposal does not change the basic requirement for public disclosure of this information, it simply makes this information more readily available to constituents. In this day and age, I find it difficult to understand why information required to be disclosed by law should not be published on the internet. After all, the interests of members of the lower house are published on the parliamentary website.

Thirdly, I have heard an argument that information published on a website can become out of date and can be used for malicious purposes in the future. There are two responses to this argument. Clause 13 of this bill requires the council chief executive officer to ensure the details contained on the website are updated at regular intervals and in my view that includes removing the information when a person ceases to be a member. The council member is required to notify the chief executive officer of any changes to the register of interest within one month of the change occurring. That is clause 11 of this bill which clarifies that requirement.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I respect the fact that the minister has reached a position on it and will not, therefore, consider an amendment at this stage but I do flag the fact that, potentially, as part of the upper house debate on this I might put forward an amendment. However, there are some points I want to seek clarification on during this debate. I want to look at subsection (1)(a1)(b) which talks about 'the name of any political party'. I want to ask some questions about that and there are a couple of areas I want to go on that one.

Therefore, it sets in place the requirement that information is publicly available on the website about a political membership that any current member of council may have but, when it comes to election time and there are nominees who have never been on council before, do they have to disclose that same level of information to ensure that those who vote actually have access to equal knowledge to assist, potentially, a new member or a new candidate?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Currently, the political party is on the register. There is no change to what it is currently at the moment. We are considering the other opportunity you mentioned when looking at some alterations to the Electoral Act and, as you know, there is a new commissioner coming in.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The minister would be aware that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire has introduced his own private member's bill that talks about this and, in its first version, it had a requirement for the ballot paper to show the political affiliation, which was an error, I am advised, and he has withdrawn his amendment to clause 6. I know from the good contact that your staff provides to me, it has been confirmed that this is part of the review post the 2014 state election that the Electoral Commissioner and the department is undertaking. I understand that point but I want to make the point on it, though.

Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. G.G. Brock.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Under paragraph (c) of subsection (1), it talks about 'any gifts received by the member that are required to be included in the information entered in the Register in relation to the member'. Can you confirm what the minimum value attached to that gift is?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: We will have to come back to you on that but it will stay the same as it is at the moment. We will come back to you on that.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I could not find it in section 70, either. That is why I asked the question. I do note in the draft bill that was provided to me by the minister some months ago, that it included a reference to hospitality also being an issue that had to be put on the register but, from what I am reading, that does not appear, unless you interpret the fact that 'gift' is hospitality also.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: The hospitality section has been removed. It is not classified as a gift.

Mr GRIFFITHS: That is interesting because I think that for the parliamentarians, we actually have to for hospitality, I thought. I thought there was a $750 gift?

An honourable member: Gift.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Alright. I am prepared to put that on the record. Can I confirm that I support clause 13.

Clause passed.

Clause 14.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I move:

Amendment No 1 [RegDev-1]—

Page 7, line 30 [clause 14, inserted section 73(2)(a)]—Delete 'area or a ward' and substitute 'council area'.

Amendment No 2 [RegDev-1]—

Page 10, line 13 [clause 14, inserted section 75(4)]—Delete 'area or a ward' and substitute 'council area'.

These are minor technical amendments requested by the Local Government Association. As it is considered that the term 'council area' better reflects the intention of the shared interest exclusion the amendment ensures a consistent approach for councils, recognising that not all councils have wards.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Odenwalder): Member for Goyder, do you want to respond to those amendments?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Only to confirm that the opposition supports them.

Amendments carried.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I still have questions on clause 14.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Odenwalder): I beg your pardon. We have put the amendments, so you can talk to clause 14 now.

Mr GRIFFITHS: My support was for the amendments given by the minister yesterday, but I do still have questions on the original bill. Can I say, minister, I support you entirely on conflict of interest and what you are trying to do with the two definitions that are provided there. Actually I am interested in what the definitions of them are. I am wondering in the first instance where we are talking about material conflicts of interest if the minister can give an outline for the benefit of Hansard and those who may choose to read it in the future, what it means.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Thank you, and I am glad that you agree with what we are doing on this one, but I do explain the difference. This reform repeals the current chapters 5, part 4, division 3 of the act and replaces it with a new division 3.

This reform establishes the material conflicts of interest, which include those situations where a council member or a person or entity closely associated with the member stands to gain a benefit or suffer a loss depending on the outcome of the consideration of the matter at the council meeting. The government's intention is to capture the most serious conflicts of interest in the material conflicts of interest category, especially those matters that would result in a financial gain or loss for the council member or associates.

The intention is to send a very clear message to the local government sector that material conflicts of interest are serious matters and must be treated accordingly. I will give members a couple of examples of a material conflict of interest: a land rezoning project involving a commercial agreement in excess of $100 million. Negotiations are being undertaken in relation to the cost sharing arrangements between the state government agencies, the council and the individual owners in relation to the provision of roads, services and infrastructure for the rezoning.

The outcome of the negotiations would be infrastructure deeds that would require the relevant landowners to make financial contributions towards the provision of various types of infrastructure. These financial contributions would be made by a levy on the gross sale of the relevant land. This levy amount is the critical negotiation between the council and the landowners. The negotiations are critical as the process stipulates that all infrastructure requirements are to be identified and costed and funding agreed between the parties before the land can be rezoned from horticultural to residential, for argument sake.

An example of this is as follows: Councillor A resides and owns land in the areas of subject to the rezoning negotiation. Councillor A is also chair of the relevant community committee advocating for relevant landowners in this matter. Accordingly, Councillor A receives legal advice that notes that the proposed rezoning may result in landowners, such as the councillor, receiving a significant financial benefit if the development plan proceeds.

The advice concludes that Councillor A would be conflicted when the council makes decisions in relation to the DPA and that, at council meetings, Councillor A should disclose the conflict and not participate. However, Councillor A remains and participates in a council meeting that considers the infrastructure negotiations in confidence.

Specifically, Councillor A votes for a motion that endorses a 0.5 per cent levy on gross sales to contribute to the funding of associated infrastructure, and when that motion was set aside and lost following a division, Councillor A votes against the motion that endorses council staff to continue to pursue up to a 1 per cent levy on the land.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Is that the fantasy example, or has that actually occurred? I must say, the quantum of dollars involved is rather interesting.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: It may appear that way but this is based on the Ombudsman's report to me as the minister, and we want to separate the two.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Mr Acting Chair, I apologise for being flippant by referring to 'fantasy version', but I suppose I would have appreciated a version that is in the financial realms that people can actually understand. That is the large picture scale of it, but it is material conflict of interest and I thank you for putting that on the record. Paragraph (i) in subsection (1) within new section 73 under clause 14 refers to 'a person of a prescribed class'. Can you explain to me what that means?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: That is 'a person of a prescribed class'?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: That just allows for regulations to be made from that, if necessary.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I understand that a regulation will stem from it, but I still do not understand what 'prescribed class' means.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: We do not have any terminology for 'prescribed class' at this particular point, but it allows us to have that in there if we are going to make any regulations at a later date.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I refer to subsections (3) and (4) which, again, I do not believe were included in the draft version that was provided to me.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Odenwalder): This is in the amended version?

Mr GRIFFITHS: This is in the bill as it was tabled originally on 1 July, Mr Acting Chair—not the amendments from yesterday, but the bill from 1 July. Given that subsections (3) and (4) were not part of the draft bill that we spoke about, I am just looking for some details on them, please.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: As you say, these were not in the original bill. We were advised by the Ombudsman and parliamentary counsel to bring these into the new bill.

Mr GRIFFITHS: My next question relates to new section 74 under clause 14, which provides at subsection (1):

If a member of a council has a material conflict of interest in a matter to be discussed at a meeting of the council, the member must—

(a) inform the meeting of the member's material conflict of interest in the matter;

This is an obvious one I must admit, but, on this basis, if a member declares that they have an interest in it should there be an opportunity for the council to debate if an interest does exist? If a member declares it that is an open and shut case and you have to accept that; there is no need for them to agree to it, for example.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Can you repeat that?

Mr GRIFFITHS: It provides:

If a member of a council has a material conflict of interest in a matter to be discussed…the member must—

(a) inform the meeting of the member's material conflict of interest in the matter;

Because people are cautious by nature—and the majority of them are—I believe there will be occasions, particularly when the new interpretations are still being sorted out, when members will declare they have a material conflict of interest. What if others, who might be more educated on what the provisions of the legislation actually mean, do not believe that is the case?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: It is really still a matter for the member themselves to decide to declare it. That is about all I can say at this particular point.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I know that it is not an easy one to determine; I respect that, and I believe it will be used in the best ways. If we go to subsection (3) under this section 74, it refers to the fact that the minister may grant an approval in writing to a member of the council to take part in a meeting. I understand the circumstances and all that sort of thing, but how do they apply to you, minister, and are there time frames in place in which you have to respond? When notices are given of a meeting and what the agenda items are, it might be three days or something like that for an agenda to be available beforehand.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: As the member would understand, because he has had local government experience, this has very rarely been used. If it did come up then the minister at the time would respond as quickly as they could to request that. However, from my memory this has never come up in my time in council. It is there as a precaution.

Mr GRIFFITHS: So writing includes the definition of an email correspondence, both ways, being acceptable to say it is in writing? Okay. I go now to section 75, where it is actual or perceived conflicts of interest. I believe it would be beneficial for you to put on the Hansard what the definition of that is.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: This reform establishes the second category of conflict of interest, as you mentioned before: actual and perceived conflicts of interest. This category includes matters considered to be less serious than material conflicts of interest, but nevertheless interest must be disclosed and documented. These reforms are based on the fundamental principles that council members must always consider the public interest in any decisions or actions taken in their role as a council member. The private interest of a member must never prevail over the public interest in that context.

An actual conflict of interest can be distinguished from a material conflict of interest because the potential gain or loss to the council member is less significant; for example, it may be a non-financial, minor gain or loss. Most importantly, an actual conflict of interest, while needing to be declared, is less likely to influence the judgement of a member on the matter to be decided before the council.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I do not have any other questions on that. I just thought it was important to put on the record what the other example is. If I can go to 75A, which is on page 10. Approximately halfway down, under subsection (2), it states:

If the member proposes to participate in the meeting in relation to the matter, how the member intends to deal with the actual or perceived conflict of interest.

Therefore, I assume the member has to explain how they intend to deal with it. My question then becomes: what if the other relative members of council cannot accept the explanation?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Unlike material conflicts of interest where there is only one course of action available to the council member, provision is made for a range of actions for a council member with an actual or perceived conflict of interest. It is important to note that management of this category of conflicts of interest does not automatically require a council member to leave a meeting. The fundamental principle is that the council member must deal with the actual or perceived conflict of interest in a transparent and accountable way. There is no automatic requirement for the council member to leave the meeting and refrain from voting on the matter. In these situations the council member is required to disclose the interest to the meeting and advise the meeting of how the interest will be managed if the member chooses to stay in the meeting and vote on the matter. These details must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting, including how the council member voted on that matter.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I can understand and indeed it sets the scene for those who may be aggrieved by a decision made by the elected member as part of that discussion and therefore subsequent action taken at a different place in a different way. I just wanted to raise that point also. I am interested in subsection (3) where it determines that if a quorum cannot be established because a member has decided to exclude themselves, it basically gives you an out and lets that member remain and be involved in the discussion and, indeed, vote. That intrigues me.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: If I understand the member's question, if the member leaves the chamber with a conflict of interest declared and there is not a quorum, is that what you are indicating? Can you repeat the question?

Mr GRIFFITHS: I understand it is a bit confusing. It starts off, if a quorum at a meeting cannot be formed because a member of a council proposes to exclude himself or herself but then it provides an out, that if a quorum cannot be formed and therefore the meeting will have to be dissolved then that member is able to remain and not be found to be in offence of anything, but I presume still sets themselves up for an action by another person at a later date on this. That is why I am intrigued by why the provision exists.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: These are dealing with less serious conflicts of interest and if a member does abuse it there is the out, there is the process of a code of conduct for the councillors or the council to proceed with that.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I only raise the point because if the member has determined that they should not take part in it but they are then required to stay to ensure that the quorum exists, I think that puts pressure upon the individual. I just wanted to raise that point. If I may jump—

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: We will note your comments.

Mr GRIFFITHS: If I am wrong, I apologise. If I can jump to 75B—Application of Division to members and meetings of committees and subsidiaries, and it refers specifically to: these provisions extend to committees of the council. I know the committee structure is not used as extensively as it once was within local government when there were an enormous number of community-based groups that were subcommittees of the council, but has there been any feedback from any group to you, minister, about the fact—and I understand this comes from a higher level, that the request has been made—that this will make it even more challenging, where committees do exist, to get community-based members to participate in them because of the requirement to abide by what the Local Government Act now says?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: As we all know, this is an amendment that ensures the conflict of interest provisions extend to all committees and subsidiaries of that. This is a safeguard, but there has been nothing reported to me, to my knowledge, during my period but it is a safeguard.

Clause as amended passed.

Clauses 15 and 16.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am happy with clause 15 but I have a question about legislation that is not included in this, in the Local Government Act still. Given the spirit of bipartisanship that exists, if I can pose the question now to the minister, it relates to section 79—Register of allowances and benefits. It does not talk about websites. There are a couple of examples that I have found here where changes have been made to include websites as an allowable form, but in section 79 of the Local Government Act 1999 it refers to the register of allowances and benefits but in my review of that it does not talk about that information being available on the website. Was it the intent as part of the review to include all examples of where information is available for the community and policies and all that sort of stuff to require it to be published on the website?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: We will have to take that one on notice and come back.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The next one is actually on the next clause that exists in the basic act which is section 70A which is about training and development. It refers to the fact that the council must adopt it for its members but I believe it is another example of where potentially the community interests might be. For a newly elected member of the council, what training do they have to undertake? It might be a good idea if a policy exists—great, yes—and that has been subject to changes from legislation last year about training requirements. Shouldn't that be a policy that is also available on the website?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: We will take that on notice and note your comments on that.

Clauses passed.

Clause 17.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I want to confirm that the opposition accepts the amendment.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I move:

Amendment No 3 [RegDev–1]—

Page 12, line 8 [clause 17(1), inserted paragraph (c)]—Delete 'or the State'

This is a minor technical amendment requested by the LGA. The intent of this provision is to ensure that councils do not exclude members of the public from a discussion of matters that are controversial within the council area with this as the sole reason. Issues that are controversial across the state are not relevant to the intent of this amendment.

Amendment carried.

Mr GRIFFITHS: First, I state that I actually agree completely with the changes that are being proposed, but I have some questions, particularly when it refers to section 90, after subsection (8). This about the middle of the page on page 12. It refers to (8a) and then paragraph (a) underneath that, that a council has adopted a policy on the holding of informal gatherings or discussions. My question, therefore: is the minister proposing that there be consistency on the policy and that a template be prepared and provided by him to the Local Government Association and all 68 councils?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: This is an amendment that requires all councils to have a policy in relation to informal gatherings, and we mentioned that earlier on. The policy will need to comply with any requirements of the regulation. It is the government's intention that these policies will include a requirement for councils to decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not informal gatherings and workshops should be open to the public.

It is also my expectation that the policy would include a process of notifying the public about when an informal gathering will be held and whether or not it will be held in confidence and, if so, the grounds for it being held in confidence. This was a recommendation of the Ombudsman, as the Ombudsman, through his investigations, noticed perceptions that councils were improperly making important and sensitive decisions at informal meetings behind closed doors. It was a recommendation of the Ombudsman and we will be keeping a close eye on this one. I will also consider whether any regulations may be required at a later date.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 18.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I note that this clause relates to the minutes and the release of documents and the time frames in which a decision of council has to be actioned, if indeed the intention is to keep them on a confidential basis, and for an order to be specified. Is there a limit as to how long such an order be created for? From what I have seen, it is only 12 months at a time, but is there an end date on how many times that can actually be undertaken before information has to be available?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: That is a good point. This is an amendment that aims to make it clear that, if a council or council committee seeks to extend the duration of a confidentiality order over documents, it must resolve to do so before the date of the expiry of the preceding order, and that it must be the council or council committee that resolves to do so. This power cannot be delegated to an employee of the council.

It also should be noted that section 91(9)(b) of the act requires that, if an order is made to keep a document or part of a document confidential, a note must be made in the minutes of the meeting recording the making of the order, the grounds on which the order was made and the decision that was made. The minutes of the meeting are to be held in a public area. As to the question about whether it is six months or 12 months, they have to be reviewed every 12 months.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I understand that and I apologise if I was not listening as intently as I should have been, but is there a certain number of times that that can be undertaken?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: No, it is not currently in the act, but it would be subject to the Ombudsman. We will take on board your comments for discussion maybe with the Ombudsman as we go along.

Clause passed.

Clause 19 passed.

Clause 20.

Mr GRIFFITHS: This clause is about vacancy in office, where the chief executive officer resigns. I consider this one a big call, I have to say.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Consider it a big call?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes, and it is interesting legislation. I will pose a question to you on this, because it provides:

…a chief executive officer who resigns under subsection (2)(a) may, before the date that the resignation takes effect—

is that the last day that they would work?—

withdraw the resignation by notice in writing to the council.

I note that, where this occurs, the council still has to resolve to accept that withdrawal of the resignation, and I understand that. My question relates to the fact that I am not sure of the timing, because it refers to 'takes effect', and I need some definition on that. I give you the example that, if a CEO decides to resign and they put an end date on that, and it might be three months in the future, and the council decides to accept it at that time because they have to, and they go through the process of advertising, interviewing and an appointment, but no commencement actually having taken place yet, because it might be a month beforehand—they might have got through it quickly. So, in effect, you have somebody there but you have someone else ready to start because you have made the appointment. What happens then?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am advised that the council is not obliged to accept the withdrawal of the notice from the officer.

Mr GRIFFITHS: And that is true. My only concern is if the personal relationship with the CEO and elected members in the majority had been sufficient that, if they had changed their mind for whatever reason and wanted to come back and the council said yes. What would occur then? I know the potential exists for the aggrieved person, who no longer has the role available to them because the council has resolved in the majority to accept the withdrawal of the resignation. Does that set up a precedent where legal action can take place to recover what would have been the value of the contract over the period it was offered?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: The council may have to seek its own legal advice on that because it is not normal or desirable. However, we will take your comments on that.

The CHAIR: So 20 is okay?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Given that the Treasurer is putting some pressure on me, I am prepared to jump through to clause 28.

Clause passed.

Clauses 21 to 27 passed.

Clause 28.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Clause 28 is about the inspection of the assessment record, where it requires that a person who inspects the assessment record or obtains a copy, made an entry of it, must not use the information so obtained for advertising or marketing activities for commercial purposes. How are you going to control that? I note that it has a $10,000 fine as a penalty, but how do you do that in a practical way?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: This is an amendment that was requested by the Local Government Association. It states that the information accessed from the assessment record is not to be used for commercial purposes, and it has a maximum penalty, as you have indicated, of $10,000. The intention is to address privacy concerns. It aims to protect property owners from real estate agents or other commercial entities accessing such information for commercial purposes. Aggrieved persons could take their own action or complain to the Ombudsman.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Madam Chair, I confirm that I will accept clauses 28, 29 and 30.

Clause passed.

Clauses 29 and 30 passed.

Clause 31.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I have a very general question on clause 31. This is about road closures. For the life of me I cannot remember this older chap who used to complain about the legal aspects attached to road closures being wrong.

The Hon. G.G. Brock: Mr Howie.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Well done. I congratulate you. Mr Howie. Minister, is this going to fix it? I suppose that is my question. Are the legal experts out there going to say that this is still wrong, or is this the absolute best?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: This is the advice that we have been given. This amendment transfers the provision of the Local Government Act 1934, which will be repealed by this bill. The former section 359 of the 1934 act provided a general power for councils to close roads to exclude vehicles. The LGA requested that this provision be transferred to the current act as councils have powers to close roads permanently under the Roads (Opening and Closing) Act 1991. This amendment provides that a council may close a road for a maximum period of 30 days. This will provide flexibility for councils to deal with local conditions without permitting a de facto permanent road closure. That is the advice we have been given.

Clause passed.

Clauses 32 and 33 passed.

Clause 34.

Mr GRIFFITHS: My reflection upon the original draft and the bill provided to me is that clause 34(1) about 'Complaint lodged in District Court' was not in the draft. Can the minister give me an outline of that?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: With the draft we have tried to be open and transparent with everything. This was an oversight in the original draft, and this is a recommendation of the Ombudsman.

Clause passed.

Clauses 35 to 37 passed.

Clause 38.

Mr GRIFFITHS: This is an easy one. This clause talks about changing:

delete '450 metres of the curtilage of a house' and substitute: 500 metres of a house or dwelling

What is the difference?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: This is an amendment that was requested by the Local Government Association. It clarifies the provision by removing the words 'of the curtilage', and now states 'land that is within 500 metres of a house or a dwelling'. The aim is to avoid confusion about the definition of curtilage for the purpose of this provision. This section empowers councils to enter or occupy land for various purposes, for example, to obtain earth, deposit soil, construct temporary roads, conduct surveys, inspections and so on. The section currently states that a council is not authorised under the section to enter or occupy land that is within 450 metres of the curtilage of the house.

Curtilage is the legal definition of the land immediately surrounding a house or a dwelling. However, even the term 'immediately surrounding' is not particularly clear. This amendment simply removes the term 'curtilage' and replaces it with a specific metric measurement. Under section 294(1)(a) of the act, for the occupying of land the council is to provide the owner with at least 48 hours notice of entry, in writing. Under section 294(1)(b) it states that notice need not be given if the action is required to be undertaken in an emergency or is otherwise impracticable, or—

Mr GRIFFITHS: I hate to interrupt the minister. I understand the reasons for it, but my question was about the difference in the distance. I can only assume it comes back to the original days when it was 400 yards and converted to 450 metres and now it has been rounded up to a reasonable figure. I wonder if that was the reason.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Advice by parliamentary counsel for the wording of that.

Clause passed.

Clauses 39 and 40 passed.

Schedule 1.

The CHAIR: A little question about the schedule?

Mr GRIFFITHS: No, it is not a question but just a comment noting the fact that part 2 repeals the Local Government Act 1934. I think that is worthy of being noted in the house, that is all, because the act did serve local government faithfully for a long time, with a lot of amendments—

The Hon. G.G. Brock interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: I know, but it has still coexisted with the 1999 act, so I just note that.

The CHAIR: Isn't that an important qualification to have there—yes.

Schedule passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.G. BROCK (Frome—Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Local Government) (18:38): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.