Local Government (Ratepayer Protection and Related Measures) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 April 2019.)

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (10:53): In closing the debate, the contributions made by members opposite against the ratepayer protection bill clearly reveal that they have not properly understood the provisions in it. I will address each of the ill-informed criticisms, but first I would like to refute the assertion made that the ratepayer protection bill was not informed by consultation with the local government sector. Indeed, I can inform the house that last year I visited all but one of the Local Government Association's regional forums.

I attended local government forums for Eyre Peninsula, the cities of the Iron Triangle, the Legatus Group of councils in the Mid North and Barossa region, the Murraylands and Riverland region and the Limestone Coast councils of the South-East. At every forum, I discussed with councils their priorities for local government reform and, at every forum, I actually listened to what they had to say. I did not make a set piece address and then leave, as I have noticed some opposite do when they visit regional forums.

I also had several meetings with metropolitan councils and I listened to the challenges that councils are facing. They told me that South Australian councils are well aware that the rorts and excesses that have been exposed in the past couple of years are unacceptable to the community. South Australian councils know that these rorts, committed by a minority of councils, do not meet community standards.

They are interested in meaningful reform to ensure that councils meet community expectations and standards, but they do not believe that outsourcing or, if you like, privatising council financial management to an unelected bureaucracy with a poor record of restraining price increases for utility services will remove the worst excesses of council rorts. Councils have told me that, to improve council conduct and financial management, we have to mandate greater levels of council transparency, disclosure and accountability. These measures directly impact council conduct and performance.

The provisions in the ratepayer protection bill are designed to mandate greater levels of council transparency, disclosure and accountability. The bill was designed in consultation with the local government sector. Indeed, half a dozen meetings were held with senior executives of the LGA on the bill's provisions. If you compare the draft bill that was put out for comment with the final bill, you will notice a number of changes that reflect input from the local government sector.

I now turn to the ill-informed criticisms raised by those opposite. In relation to CEO remuneration reform, in his contribution the Minister for Local Government agreed that measures designed to limit chief executive remuneration were fair enough, but he went on to criticise the absence of a provision in the bill for housing support for chief executives in regional councils. My advice to the minister is that he should make sure that his advice is up to date.

Before the bill was passed in the upper house, an amendment was moved by the Labor Party to allow a place of residence to be included in the remuneration of chief executives of councils outside the metropolitan area who have an existing residential asset. This sensible amendment was designed to avoid disadvantaging councils that have already made a significant residential investment. The amendment was made in consultation with LGA executives and regional councils. In fact, a number of district councils raised it with me.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Sir, out of an abundance of generosity, I would like to move that the member's time be extended by a minute.

The SPEAKER: Yes. I believe that you need to suspend standing orders in order to do that. Minister for Education, I am pretty sure that the member for Light is close to the end.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The provisions in this bill give councils a greater incentive to engage with their communities and a greater ability to form their budgets while also ensuring that councils are more accountable to their communities.

The house divided on the second reading:

Ayes 21

Noes 23

Majority 2

Second reading thus negatived.