Bills

Statutes Amendment (Local Government Review) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Dr HARVEY (Newland) (15:45): I will continue with my remarks from before lunch. There were 18 months of consultation with councils, the Local Government Association (LGA), local government professional bodies and statutory authorities, including the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (ICAC), the Ombudsman, the Auditor-General, the Electoral Commissioner of South Australia, Essential Services Commission of South Australia (ESCOSA) and the South Australian Civil Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) to allow all relevant statutory bodies that may be affected by or have an interest in to have their say on any proposed amendments.

It is important to acknowledge this consultation, as our government has been committed to undertaking a thorough local government reform process working side by side with the local government sector in comparison with the political ploy by Labor, which saw us vote down their Local Government (Ratepayer Protection and Related Measures) Amendment Bill which was rushed into parliament without consultation from the local government sector.

The first pillar of the government's reform program is the creation of a new conduct management framework for council members that separates poor behaviour from matters that can affect the integrity of council decisions and provides clearer pathways for the investigation and resolution of issues that arise. Another improvement identified is the introduction of a behaviour standards panel to deal with serious misbehaviour and enable more efficient resolutions to arguments or disputes that may arise between council members.

This framework is designed so that there will be clarity around conduct requirements and appropriate training so that council members can uphold better behavioural standards. Lower costs and greater financial accountability are things that the Marshall Liberal government is committed to delivering. That is why I support the implementation of a rate monitoring scheme that would require councils to receive advice from a designated authority on their proposed revenue sources, including rates, that they must publicly release.

The proposed amendments would require councils to receive ESCOSA advice every three years. This amendment is a relaxation from the initial determination of requiring councils to receive advice every year, and this relaxation of three years allows the advice to focus on councils' financial decisions within the context of their longer term financial plans with advice based on variations to revenue and expenditure from these plans.

The rate monitoring scheme is focused on improving the quality of information advice that is provided to councils, their administrations and their communities, which in turn will lead to a more educated decision-making process around rate changes for ratepayers. Not only will councils with these reforms have to consider advice from an independent body but councils will be required to provide information on their proposed rate revenue, which will include the council's view of the impact of the rate change on its ratepayers.

This is important because it will challenge the council to consider alternative mechanisms, such as the responsible use of debt, use of council reserves and, most importantly, how the proposed changes fall in line with the council's long-term financial plan and infrastructure and asset management plans. The independent body will provide advice earlier to councils so that they are able to consider this advice as they are developing their draft annual business plan for the following financial year. The intention for this reform is to give ratepayers greater confidence that the rates they pay are what is necessary for their councils to provide the services they value.

To create more efficient and transparent local government elections, there are several proposed amendments. The bill proposes in clause 9 that all councils have no more than 12 elected members in the council. To govern its implementation, the changes will progress through representation reviews. Councils, which undertake a representation review between the commencement of the section and 1 January 2022, will have the 12 members before the 2022 periodic elections. All other councils will change the number of seats prior to the 2026 elections. All councils will have a directly elected principal member, namely the mayor, under clause 18.

Supplementary elections will also be changed under this bill, namely, that a supplementary election will no longer need to be held to fill casual vacancies that occur in the same year as a periodic election that is due. Clause 139 provides that supplementary elections will not be held to fill a maximum of two casual vacancies if they occur in councils without wards and have a total of nine or more elected members.

Clause 140 allows the last excluded candidate for the previous periodic election to be elected, but this is only if there is a vacancy that arises within 12 months of a periodic election and the candidate still meets the relevant eligibility criteria and they accept the election within one month of notification. The Electoral Commission will be responsible for the nominations process. They will manage the online nomination process and provide councils with nominations within 24 hours after the close of nominations.

A reform that is being discussed involves candidates being required to disclose whether they are local to the council and any political associations within the past 12 months. Further, campaign donations will need to be disclosed if they are (approximately, although not confirmed) to be $2,500 within five days of receipt. I do think that greater transparency around political associations and campaign donations is a worthy endeavour regarding councils.

If there is one thing that I think the community hates to see almost more than anything else regarding local government, other than perhaps wasteful spending or not addressing or looking after critical assets, is the council chamber being used as a political forum, not so much if the politics is about local government issues but if it is used to fight proxy battles for another level of government. Certainly, I have seen plenty of examples where, to me, local councillors who should be working in the interests of those who elected them instead do the bidding of political parties at another level of government.

The final pillar of the reform is simpler regulation. This reform aims to replace the prescriptive and detailed community engagement requirements defined in the Local Government Act 1999 with a simpler and more flexible Community Engagement Charter which will include streamlined requirements for the publication of notices. A simpler and more efficient regulation process will also be created by the improvement to councils' internal review of decisions to better manage persistent requests, removing requirements around informal gatherings in favour of a simpler approach to information and briefing sessions and, finally, streamlining council members' register of interest process.

In conclusion, I would like to acknowledge the councils within my electorate's boundaries. The Tea Tree Gully council by far represents the largest proportion of residents within my electorate, but the Adelaide Hills Council represents the largest geographic region, and I have a small piece of the Playford council up in the Humbug Scrub areas.

Credit where it is due, councils have to manage quite diverse environments. In the case of Tea Tree Gully, it is very much a metropolitan council along the hills face and, in contrast, Adelaide Hills is quite different and is a metropolitan region but, for the most part, is much more rural. My conversations with councillors, particularly in the Adelaide Hills Council, show they have had to face many challenges in recent times, particularly in the recovery period after the Cudlee Creek bushfire in helping to deal with the clean-up effort and replacement of their own infrastructure, as well as many of the other things they have had to do as a result of that. So I do commend them for their work on that, and I have a pretty good relationship with the Adelaide Hills Council.

Tea Tree Gully council also does a lot of good work, and I would very much like to credit them for some of the good things they do, particularly having some very fantastic parks. They are also very good at events. It is a shame this year that their Christmas carols event has had to be cancelled because of the pandemic. Of course, that is understandable. This is one of the largest carols events in the entire country, so I think it is very much a credit to Tea Tree Gully council, particularly their events section, for the very, very good work they do.

I also work very closely with them on a number of important sporting projects. There are six new tennis and netball courts that the Marshall government has funded, in partnership with the Tea Tree Gully council, within Banksia Park within what is the Tea Tree Gully sports hub. This is increasing capacity for local families, whether they are part of a local team—the Tea Tree Gully Tennis Club, the Tea Tree Gully Netball Club, the Banksia Park Netball Club. I know other netball clubs are interested in using that site for training once it has expanded. I am also really keen to work with the Tea Tree Gully Tennis Club to help expand the kinds of tournaments and events they host there. Once completed, that will be one of the largest tennis facilities in the state.

The Tea Tree Gully BMX Club is another project where the government has worked very closely with the Tea Tree Gully council, as well as a number of others: Tea Tree Gully Sportsman's Club, the footy club and the cricket club—new change rooms and new lights. Once again, we are working together with the South Australian Districts Netball Association on an enormous facility in the Golden Grove area. Literally hundreds of thousands of people go through that facility every year for netball. We have worked with the council to help resurface that as well as to improve the exit and entry to and from that site.

There is, however, one area in particular where perhaps there has been a difference of opinion in terms of how well the council has managed the issue, and that is, of course, the Community Wastewater Management System (CWMS). I am very proud to be part of a government that has committed to fixing up that mess and has started that process immediately—to have SA Water transfer all properties on the Tea Tree Gully council septic system across to SA Water sewerage, with the first houses to transfer across from next year.

Unfortunately, in this case, I very strongly believe the council is on, the wrong side of this. In fact, the regulator very recently had some quite scathing remarks on the CWMS. Following the government's announcement, ESCOSA reviewed the CWMS in the Tea Tree Gully council area and made a number of observations. Most of their review was of the actual pricing of the CWMS service charge that has skyrocketed in recent years, but the first observation that ESCOSA made was quite scathing. I quote:

The performance of the CWMS is poor due to under investment over time. This has reduced service quality and reliability, and potentially increased the risk to public health and safety and the environment.

Unfortunately, this is an example where a council has allowed essential assets to fall into a state of disrepair through underinvestment over time. The government has decided to step in and fix the mess and clean up the mess, and I am certainly very keen to work in a constructive way with the council. Unfortunately, there has been some chest beating and some information that is of questionable accuracy being peddled, certainly not by council staff but perhaps at the political level, which is really quite disappointing.

I think at the end of the day what the community want is to see this fixed. What they want to see is SA Water transfer the properties across as quickly as possible to provide a service that will be, on average, $400 a year cheaper. It will also be a much better service. You will not have to tanks cleaned out every four years; you will not have pipes disintegrating or, as in one case, bubbling out in the backyard six times in the last 18 months.

Really, what we need to do is just get on with this and fix it, with no more blames and no more accusing others of forcing the service charge to go up. Apparently, it was ESCOSA's fault the council absolutely had to increase the fee in the way they did. ESCOSA came out and said, 'Well, actually, no, that's not true. They should really have reviewed and should really be reviewing their price in light of the government's announcement,' which I think is exactly what the community expects.

Having said all that, with the exception of the CWMS, I think for the most part the Tea Tree Gully council does do a good job. I think the Adelaide Hills Council does a good job. It has less to do with the Playford council, which has to deal with the kind of situation where the vast bulk of its population is within the metropolitan area, but it does have some what might be like regional areas but are not necessarily classified that way, and that does present some challenges for some of the constituents in those areas. It is a difficult area of work.

We are keen to reform this area to ensure that member capacity is of a high standard and that behaviour where it needs to be improved does so. We will lower costs and enhance the financial accountability of councils and increase the efficiency and transparency of local government representations while simplifying the regulations.

I certainly support the bill and I support these reforms. I commend both the former Minister for Local Government as well as the current Minister for Local Government for their work in this area. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms LUETHEN (King) (16:01): I rise to support the Statutes Amendment (Local Government Review) Bill 2020. The Marshall Liberal government is committed to easing cost-of-living pressures for households and businesses in my electorate and all across South Australia through local government reform. In South Australia, we do not have an effective system to provide effective control over burgeoning council rate increases across South Australia.

At the 2014 election, the Marshall Liberal government took a policy to the South Australian people to cap council rates in South Australia. In 2018, we took that same policy to the people of South Australia and they overwhelmingly voted for it. I have had to explain many times to families in the King electorate why rate capping has not been implemented and this is because council rates continue to be an issue of critical importance and concern to families and households living in King. The Marshall Liberal government has a clear mandate to help put downward pressure on council rates in South Australia.

I have told families living in the King electorate there are only three things standing in the way of lower rate notices: the South Australian Labor Party, SA-Best and the Greens. These are the parties that voted against our new rate capping bill. Now, as we introduce this second bill, one thing is standing in the way of a successful passage: the Labor Party support for lower council rates. I hope that changes.

The Labor Party in South Australia need to decide whether they are on the side of households in South Australia or on the side of political interests. Do they want to see lower bills and cost-of-living relief in South Australia or not? Our government have provided cost-of-living relief across a whole lot of areas. The Minister for Energy and Mining is doing a fantastic job helping to bring down electricity prices in South Australia.

In our first budget, we provided emergency services levy relief of $90 million to South Australian households. This year, we announced the biggest cut to water bills in South Australia's history, undoing the damage done by Labor over their 16 years in office. Now, for the second time over this four-year term, we are providing an opportunity for the parliament to listen to the mandate that South Australian people gave this government: to provide rate relief to South Australian households.

This second bill on local government reform is a test of the Labor Party and the opposition leader about whether they support households in South Australia getting rate relief. If they fail that test, we will take this to the next election and again ask the people of South Australia what they want to see in terms of value for every dollar of their rate money here in South Australia.

I ask the opposition: is it okay to see rates increase at double the rate of inflation? Is it okay to see rate bills go up by hundreds of dollars every year? Is it okay to see so much of ratepayer money spent on servicing millions of dollars of debt? Is it okay to see ratepayers' money spent on non-essential projects? Ratepayers in the Playford council area have told me they cannot understand why we have a huge multistorey car park on Main North Road at Elizabeth when people can park in the shopping centre car park.

My constituents are told time and time again that there is no money in the council budgets for footpaths, for fixing their crumbling kerbs, for improving our local roads, for greening local spaces, to build more bus shelters, to run community buses or to give them a green bin so they can fully participate in recycling, which in turn will save the council money, create jobs in the recycling industry and enable our local community to contribute in a practical way to help address climate change.

I ask the opposition: is it okay to see millions of dollars of ratepayers' money spent on dishonourable conduct by local government elected members? Is it okay that council staff and elected members may not feel safe from sexual harassment in their workplace? Is that okay? On 17 June 2020, the Statutes Amendment (Local Government Review) Bill was introduced into parliament. It contains a wide range of reforms to the Local Government Act 1999 and related legislation.

The Marshall Liberal government have continued to introduce amendments to the bill as a result of ongoing consultation and collaboration with the LGA and statutory authorities. The bill contains many reforms that are strongly supported by councils. The bill contains a range of improvements to how councils operate and are accountable to their communities. Importantly, it will contain initiatives to combat longstanding issues in the local government sector in regard to council member conduct and how councils make critical decisions around rating and other matters.

The reform in this bill resulted from 18 months of consultation with councils, the Local Government Association, local government professional bodies and statutory authorities including the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption, the Ombudsman, the Auditor-General, the Electoral Commission of South Australia, Essential Services Commission of South Australia and the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Key reforms in the Statutes Amendment (Local Government Review) Bill include a wide range of improvements to the system of local government in South Australia across four main areas of reform: firstly, strongly council member capacity and better conduct, a new and strengthened framework for the management of poor council member behaviour and conduct; and, secondly, lower costs and enhanced financial accountability, with a requirement for councils to receive advice from an independent body on critical revenue and rating decisions and an enhanced role for council audit committees.

Thirdly, the bill includes reform in the area of efficient and transparent local government representation with a range of improvement to local government elections and, fourthly, simpler regulation will simplify a number of processes and requirements to reduce red tape from statutory requirements and councils' own administrative processes. A range of government amendments are proposed that will strengthen this bill even further. Most amendments are technical or minor; however, a range of more significant amendments are proposed.

These include proposed changes to the revised rate capping scheme included in the bill, which have been determined following discussion with the LGA. While maintaining the intent of the scheme to require councils to receive advice from a designated authority on their proposed revenue sources, including rates, which they must publicly release, it is proposed to amend the scheme to clarify within the bill that the designated authority will be ESCOSA and require councils to receive ESCOSA advice every three years rather than every year.

This will focus on councils' financial decisions within the context of their long-term financial plans, with advice based on significant variations in revenue and expenditure from these plans and/or the appropriateness of their revenue rate settings over the period. Councils will be required to publish this advice, and their response to it, with their draft annual business plans each year.

Unfortunately, over the past five years, I have experienced and been told of many instances of women who work in local government, and who are elected to serve in local government, having to put up with inappropriate comments, conduct and behaviour by elected members.

I believe that all people and all women deserve a safe workplace. If women choose to work for a council and if women are elected to serve their community, they deserve to be respected for the contribution they are making and not what they are wearing. I ask all male members of South Australian elected bodies to check in and ask themselves if what they say to their peers or to staff they work with they would say to a male and, if not, the comment has no place in our modern workplace in 2020.

Therefore, I am pleased that this local government reform bill addresses sexual harassment in local government, because sexual harassment is not always what we do to people, for example hit someone on the bottom, but about what we say as well, for example, 'Can you wear red lipstick to the council meeting?' or, 'You look good in those black pants. Can you wear them again on Friday?' These comments are not respectful and they are not welcome.

I have been told by council staff that sexual harassment and unwelcome comments are widespread in local government, therefore there needs to be an easy-to-access confidential path for staff and elected members to speak up with complaints of unwelcome conduct so that together we can create the type of workplace in which we all feel respected and safe. These complaints also need to be dealt with in a cost-effective way, so that ratepayers' money is not wasted. If unwelcome behaviour or sexual harassment is substantiated, there need to be consequences, an effective way to ensure cessation of offensive behaviour, and if there is a pattern of this inappropriate and unwelcome behaviour, there need to be serious consequences.

Today, it is possible that an elected member who repeats sexual harassment may be repeatedly directed by council to apologise and directed to repeat sexual harassment training, but with no changes in their behaviour and no real consequences. For a number of years, the LGA has advocated for a review of the conduct framework for council members, including amendments to the statutory Code of Conduct for Council Members, that would result in meaningful changes to the way complaints against councillors are considered, investigated, determined and prosecuted.

Ensuring our government reforms adequately address behaviour that could be considered sexual harassment will increase efficiency of councils and provide workplaces free from sexual harassment, reduce stress and staff turnover, increase staff morale and productivity, and save workplaces and ratepayers time and money. In addition, the 'Sexual Harassment National Inquiry Report 2020' called upon all levels of government across Australia to act on the recommendations of the report to call on all employers to join in in creating safe, gender-equal and inclusive workplaces, no matter their industry or size.

The commissioner said that this will require transparency, accountability and leadership. It will also require a shift from the current reactive model, which requires complaints from individuals, to a proactive model, which will require positive actions from employers. Ultimately, a safe and harassment-free workplace is also a productive workplace. I am pleased to say this bill includes a requirement for council CEOs to ensure that employees are provided with appropriate protections from and responses to sexual harassment from council employees or members.

This bill also restricts local government election signs (corflutes) using a similar scheme to that proposed under the Electoral (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2020 to allow display of these signs only as permitted by regulation. Our Marshall government is committed to driving down council rates and costs for South Australian families and businesses, and if this bill is passed ratepayers will benefit from lower council rates under the Marshall Liberal government's new plan to reform the local government sector and drive down costs. To summarise, the key proposed cost savings initiatives include:

a new mechanism to cap council rate rises following independent advice;

cracking down on bad council behaviour, helping to reduce the approximately $13 million legal fee bill councils pass on to ratepayers each year;

capping council CEO salaries through the Remuneration Tribunal;

capping the number of councillors to 12 per council, saving approximately $666,000 per year; and

removing the need for a supplementary election if required within 12 months of the periodic election.

The focus is squarely on providing hip-pocket relief for hardworking families and businesses. Our reforms will also deliver a faster, more effective way to resolve repeated and serious misbehaviour by councillors through the behaviour standards panel. The panel will be able to crack down on rogue council behaviour, which will not be tolerated under our reforms, and suspend members for up to three months for repeated and serious misbehaviour.

Currently, councils can spend thousands of dollars getting a complaint assessed to determine whether or not it should be investigated, then tens of thousands of dollars on investigation by lawyers. I think it is fair to say that the legal fees that are billed to South Australian ratepayers due to council infighting and bad behaviour has run into the millions of dollars. Capping the number of councillors able to be elected per council and capping the CEOs' salaries will also help reduce cost pressures on councils that they can pass on the ratepayers.

I wholeheartedly support this bill to reform local government and we really now just need to get on with this for the benefit of ratepayers. In summary, I commend the Statutes Amendment (Local Government Review) Bill to the house and look forward to the contribution of all members and I really do hope that we can achieve bipartisan support so we can deliver to South Australians lower costs and better services. Thank you both to the member for Schubert and the Attorney-General for their ongoing hard work that has gone into this bill to consult stakeholders and to present the second bill to the house.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (16:16): I wish to acknowledge and thank all speakers who have contributed to the debate. I appreciate the indication from the member for Badcoe of what appears to be a general support of a number of the aspects of the legislation—however, advising to the parliament that there will be consideration of amendments from the opposition. I would also like to acknowledge in particular the mover of this bill, which of course was the then minister for local government, the now member for Schubert, who had not only introduced this matter in the July session but also wrote to all councils at that time explaining that its introduction was by no means as an indication that discussions should cease; in fact, he invited continued ongoing dialogue about the reforms of this bill.

That is precisely what happened. I thank him for that initiative, having worked with a number of councils and in particular the Local Government Association over the 18 months before that to try to capture and accommodate reforms that they sought on behalf of their member councils and also some initiatives of which were the product of entities such as the Productivity Commission here in South Australia that also has provided to the government valuable advice on how we might best structure the important tier of government, namely local government.

I do remind members that of the 68 councils we also have an Outback Communities Authority, which supports about 4,500 people who do not have a local government entity which is responsible for them. The Outback Communities Authority is a valued body for that purpose, particularly to ensure that the voices of those people who live in the outback are heard.

A number of other entities such as the Yalata Community, the Municipal Council of Roxby Downs, the APY council, the Maralinga community, and the Nepabunna Community Council all have different types of entities for obvious reasons and they have representation through slightly different models. But in different ways there are entities on the ground that continue to serve the local communities they represent.

Indeed, in this house, we have a number of members of this parliament who have also served on council in different ways, either before coming here or there are many who leave this place after a period of service and go on to serve on their local council. That is to be applauded.

I have to say, there are people, such as the member for King, who have made a valuable contribution to this debate and in informing those of us who are new to the job (like me), or who have never served on council (like me) and who need to have an intimate understanding of how it works, what the drawbacks are and what needs to be remedied. So I thank her for that. Of course, I do not mean to diminish others. To be fair, I will perhaps identify the member for Holdfast Bay and the member for Light, who have both served as mayors in their local communities. This is cross-party politics. People have served in this way, and it is valuable to us.

There are those who have served in an executive role, leading a team of staff who work in councils. I think, for example, of Steven Griffiths, the former member for Goyder, now Narungga, who was a long-term serving local government chief executive. Without his clear insight as to how planning worked through the processes in councils, I think many of us would have struggled with exactly how we were going to deal with the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act when it was in its bill form some five or six years ago. So these are very valuable insights, and I do appreciate them. Again, I thank all speakers for their contributions.

The member for Badcoe reflected on some of the debates that have occurred around the future of local government, I think more particularly within the consideration of how many levels of government we should have. From time to time, how we are governed becomes an issue in the general public discourse. It is interesting because it was a Liberal government, the Tonkin government, that in 1980 introduced a constitutional amendment to the Constitution Act 1934 and inserted part 2A into our state constitution, which provided a guarantee for the continuance of local government in the state. Essentially, it meant that there could be no abolition of the councils without there being a majority vote in each house of parliament.

I think we were the third state in Australia at the time to introduce legislation within our own state constitution to give a bedrock of support, status and recognition to local government. We on this side of the house do recognise its significance. We think it is important. I would also say for the benefit of members that, although some fan this idea of having perhaps two levels of government instead of local, state and federal levels, both the federal government and in fact the state government are children of state governments—that is, they are created by us as a state parliament.

We cannot actually take them away. Sometimes I think about threatening that to the federal arena, but they now have statutory protections, so I cannot actually get rid of them. Most importantly for this debate, this is an endorsement of the state parliament that we recognise the continuance of our local government structure and that the important work that they do must endure.

As an example of other jurisdictions, in Germany I think there are about five levels of government, and this is not unusual. I am told that some parts of the United States have seven levels of government. In Germany, they have the equivalent of local, provincial, regional, state, federal and European, which of course has its own court system and parliamentary structure at the European level. Heaven forbid—elections must be every week in some of these places.

In any event, we should be proud of the fact that we have democratically elected governments in this country. We have a level of government to deal with the provision of services at a community level and with which the community can actually be involved. I think that is the greatest asset of local government, namely, that the people who sit in the decision-making positions actually live in the community, by and large; some do not. For example, on Kangaroo Island they have some off-island representatives on the council, and that is to recognise the fact that about 40 per cent of the ratepayers on Kangaroo Island actually do not live there.

Of course there are different aspects but, by and large, they are representative and live in the community. They have to drive on roads that are perhaps not up to speed, they have to identify whether there is an inadequate water supply, they have to be able to ensure that there is a secure power supply, etc. These are really important elected representatives who are directly accountable. They live in the community. You see them at the local football. You see them at local activities.

In my case, I see councillors who live in the Burnside area or are from the Norwood, Payneham and St Peters community of elected members. I see them out in the general community. They can speak to me; I speak to them. This is really critical to be able to have that link. As I think the member for Badcoe has acknowledged, they are a valuable part of the community. They are on the ground and they have that very clear understanding about what is needed.

I would also like to share the circumstance of the many numbers of councils that have, during the COVID period, done the right thing, if I can put it as general as that; that is, they have not increased their rates or, if they have, it has just been at a very modest level. There has been a respectful recognition of the pain that a lot of people are under in their own communities, and they have understood that. Even though they have had a workforce to continue to maintain and expenses like any other enterprise, they have done that and they have done more.

I know some councils, one I think in the member for Badcoe's area, where they have provided vouchers to their own local people to ensure that they offer the opportunity, or enticement perhaps, to use local businesses to provide services. They have really done a lot of work to try to do the right thing. The Premier has had regular meetings electronically with a huge number of councils under the chairmanship of Mr Sam Telfer as the chair of the LGA.

On the last occasion, I attended with the Premier at the Adelaide City Council, where the venue facilitates this. There is a huge screen up there with all the different CEOs and/or mayors around the state. That has been a very valuable interaction. The Premier undertakes this on a regular basis. It is probably one of the many things we have learned that has been a very helpful and instrumental communication tool that we have learned through COVID, and perhaps it may be meritorious to continue on into the future. Certainly, I appreciate the LGA's contribution in that regard.

The member is correct that there are a number of amendments that have been developed and now tabled by the government. They represent a continued contribution by those who are going to be affected by this legislation. There is an area that has been sought by the LGA on behalf of councils, and that is not to impose a regime of imposition as to the number of councillors who should make up a council as a maximum number. The government are persuaded that it is important that we do move this along.

Although there is provision in this bill to require councils to implement those changes—if this bill is passed, then that will be imposed—I just want to say to councils that there are only two councils in the category under our current law that would be required to do that before the next elections in November 2022. There are a number of other councils, many of whom might be only one over the proposed limit, but they have until the elections in 2026.

So this is not something that we are asking councils to do tomorrow or by 1 January. We really are doing this over a significant period of time. It is to assist councils to do precisely what the Productivity Commission wants to do in addition to saving money—certainly that has been raised by the member for King—and espouses that it is one of the important reasons for doing these things, but it is also to try to make sure that it is a machine in governance that is effective and efficient for their benefit as well. That is the advice we have received and we are progressing with that.

It is true that both the member for Badcoe and I are new in these roles, so there is a lot to get our head around. In addition to that, the parliament will recess after today and that will mean there will be a couple of weeks during which members will have a chance to look at the comprehensive list of amendments that have been provided. Obviously we will provide detailed briefings particularly to the shadow minister or to any members of the opposition who might seek to have them. Of course, we are more than happy to provide that.

With those few comments, I indicate that I will be asking that the bill be read a second time, then I will ask the house to consider going into committee on clause 1 and then I will be seeking an adjournment.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The CHAIR: I invite questions on clause 1. The Attorney.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I propose, Mr Chair, that we report progress.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.