Local Government (Members Contesting State Elections) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 11 May 2017.)

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (10:51): I wish to support the legislation proposed by the member for Unley. I am aware, having been a previous shadow in this area, of the intention of the Hon. Tung Ngo from the other place for a legislative amendment to the Constitution Act. I know that in the discussions I have had with the member for Unley and the member for Bragg we believed that the changes suggested are appropriate but that doing it through the Local Government Act seems a far more appropriate way in which to do it.

I can even recount some personal experiences of this—not as an elected member of council, but as a staff member supporting elected members in council—where I feel that it is an appropriate action for elected members to be excused from the council role in the last four weeks after the writs are issued and to focus on their candidacy as a member of parliament. In 2006, as the CEO of a council, I had been preselected as a candidate for the Liberal Party. Whenever the council talked with various government departments I, indeed, always flagged that fact—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is too much noise in the chamber; I cannot hear the member for Goyder.

Mr GRIFFITHS: —and the council was prepared to continue with me as the CEO until the period prior to the election, at which point I resigned. But there had been an important period in the last four weeks, in particular, when it was important that I had no association with the council at all. Therefore, I think this legislation proposed by the member for Unley is appropriate because it takes away what could be seen as any potential conflict. It takes away what could be seen as any potential information flow that could be an advantage and that could subsequently be part of a Court of Disputed Returns claim.

I do propose a couple of issues, though, and these relate to some things about which I have had some discussion with the member for Unley. One is that the legislation proposed does not define if there is to be a crossover between the council area that the elected member represents and, indeed, the parliamentary House of Assembly area that the candidate seeks election for. If they are not the same area, is there a possibility for some difference of opinion to actually be held?

I know an example—and the member for Newland is aware of the candidate who stood against him at the last state election—where the person was a member of a council and where there was no reference to the area, by not having any adjoining boundary areas or any area that was covered in both those roles. The question that I pose is: is it appropriate to consider whether in that case an excuse could be provided whereby it is not necessary to actually seek that leave in the last four weeks and for that elected member's role to continue? It could be challenging because they are trying to convince people to vote for them in one particular area while having the support of others to represent them in another, but it is one area that we might consider.

It is appropriate that the Local Government Act be the place for this to be considered. The Hon. Tung Ngo provided me with a copy of his preliminary public consultation. The Local Government Association has a copy. I am aware that the Local Government Association has given a response in support of that draft legislation. It also goes a little bit farther by talking about the removal of the allowances for that last four-week period that would normally be paid to the elected member. This legislation does not cover that. It may be an issue that we will seek to consider at a later date.

In this day of public scrutiny to a very high degree of all those who represent others, it is important that we create some lines to ensure that there could be no belief in the community that some conflicts are occurring here. I think the legislation proposed by the member for Unley is appropriate. It has support by virtue of feedback from the Local Government Association on legislative suggestions from another member in the other place, and I think this is an important example of where the government should also support this legislation, because it seeks to do the right thing.

I note that the minister is in the chamber today. I hope the minister is prepared to express an opinion on this and that the government is prepared to vote on it, because there has been ample warning. There is similar legislation proposed by the government member from the other place, so it therefore has been discussed. I think it appropriate that the chamber make a resolution on this. I fully support the intent of it.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.R. Kenyon.