Plebiscite (South East Council Amalgamation) Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. G.G. BROCK (Stuart—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Roads, Minister for Veterans Affairs) (15:52): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to provide for plebiscites in the District Council of Grant and the City of Mount Gambier to ascertain the level of support for the examination of an amalgamation of those councils to form a single council, and for other purposes. Read a first time.

Standing Orders Suspension

The Hon. G.G. BROCK (Stuart—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Roads, Minister for Veterans Affairs) (15:52): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended as to enable the bill to be taken through all stages without delay.

The SPEAKER: Count the house; an absolute majority is required.

An absolute majority of the whole number of members being present:

The SPEAKER: An absolute majority is present. I have been reminded that we will put the question that standing orders be suspended so as to enable the bill to pass through all remaining stages without delay. The standing orders suspension has been moved. I will call again for a seconder.

An honourable member: Yes, sir.

Motion carried.

Second Reading

The Hon. G.G. BROCK (Stuart—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Roads, Minister for Veterans Affairs) (15:53): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce the Plebiscite (South East Council Amalgamation) Bill 2022. This bill proposes that a plebiscite be held in both the District Council of Grant and the City of Mount Gambier to seek the views of the electors in these communities about whether they support an investigation into the potential amalgamation of the District Council of Grant and the City of Mount Gambier.

The bill also proposes that these plebiscites be undertaken by the Electoral Commission of South Australia to coincide with the upcoming council elections. The question to be put to electors is: 'Do you support the examination of an amalgamation of the District Council of Grant and the City of Mount Gambier to form a single council?'

The possible amalgamation of these two councils has been a point of discussion in the South-East and in local government circles for some time, certainly since the amalgamation processes that were undertaken in South Australia in the late 1990s that resulted in the creation of our current 68 councils.

While many councils amalgamated at this time, including the District Council of Mount Gambier and the District Council of Port MacDonnell, the City of Mount Gambier was left untouched. It remains as an island city, completely surrounded by its hinterland, with two councils, two elected member bodies and two administrations to lead and service what many would consider to be a single community. This is a unique situation in South Australia.

This question was raised consistently with cabinet members at the recent country cabinet in Mount Gambier. The member for Mount Gambier has made strong representations to the government that the amalgamation of these two councils should be actively considered. While the government agrees that this is an idea that should be taken seriously and properly investigated, our strong view is that the people who would be most affected by an amalgamation should have a say as to whether or not an investigation into it should take place. That is why we propose these plebiscites.

To be clear, these plebiscites are not triggers for a proposal to be put to the boundaries commission. They will inform the government's decision on whether or not this should occur. If there is a positive response from the community in the plebiscites, the government's next step will be to refer the proposals to the South Australian local government boundaries reform commission, which will then use the process laid out in the Local Government Act 1999 to independently and thoroughly explore the proposal.

On receipt of a proposal, the commission makes an assessment as to whether an inquiry should be undertaken to consider the merits of the proposal. In making this assessment, the commission considers the proposal in the context of the objectives of the Local Government Act 1999; the roles, functions and objectives of councils under the Local Government Act; and the principles laid out in section 26 of that act that outline what is expected of the services, capacity, representation and functioning of councils.

The inquiry itself is undertaken in accordance with the act and the commission's own guidelines, and comprises an investigation into the significance and impact of the proposal. This includes a full analysis of the proposal on the affected councils and their communities. It also involves significant community engagement.

At the end of its inquiry, the commission will report to me, as the Minister for Local Government, with any recommendations for boundary changes that, in the commission's view, are in the best interests of these communities. This report will be made public at that time and I will seek the views of the member for Flinders at that particular time. In addition to this process under the act, it is also considered appropriate that the South Australian Productivity Commission inquire into the economic benefits or costs of amalgamating the two councils to further inform the commission's inquiry.

All voters for South Australian councils will have their ballot papers posted to them in October, and the voters in these two councils will have an additional vote to cast to indicate their views on this proposal. The state government will then carefully analyse and consider what the community has said through the plebiscites before a decision is made about whether or not to take the next step of referring the matter to the commission.

The government encourage the people of the District Council of Grant and the City of Mount Gambier to participate in these plebiscites, which have the potential to help resolve a question that has been asked and speculated on for many years in the South-East of our state.

I commend the bill to the house and seek leave to have the explanation of clauses inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

EXPLANATION OF CLAUSES

1—Short title

The short title is the Plebiscite (South East Council Amalgamation) Act 2022.

2—Plebiscites

Provision is made for a proposition to be submitted to electors at plebiscites in accordance with the section as to whether they support the examination of an amalgamation of the District Council of Grant and the City of Mount Gambier to form a single council.

The Local Government (Elections) Act 1999 (including regulations made under that Act) is applied to the plebiscites as if they were polls held under that Act, subject to exclusions and modifications under Schedule 1 (and any exclusions and modifications under regulations).

Certain dates are fixed for the purposes of the plebiscites.

3—Regulations

Provision is made for the Governor to make regulations.

Schedule 1—Exclusions and modifications of Local Government (Elections) Act 1999 and Local Government (Elections) Regulations 2010

The exclusions and modifications of the Local Government (Elections) Act 1999 and the Local Government (Elections) Regulations 2010 are specified for the purposes of the plebiscites.

Mr TELFER (Flinders) (15:58): I rise to indicate I am the lead opposition speaker on the Plebiscite (South East Council Amalgamation) Bill 2022. This has been a surprising bill to have to work through this sitting week, and I cannot help feeling that it is ill thought-out and rushed legislation. It was introduced on the very same day that nominations closed for the local government council elections, meaning that voting papers will be going out in just a few weeks' time. If this is not policy on the run, then I do not know what is.

I was disappointed to hear that the members of the councils, such as the mayors, councillors and staff, did not have any insight into what the government was planning. How is this listening to the people, when they did not even have a clue what was being planned? I have been speaking to many members of the community in Mount Gambier and Grant especially over the last 24 to 36 hours, as you can imagine, when you are surprised by a piece of legislation that directly impacts your community.

These conversations are built on the many existing relationships I have with community members down there. There are none that are positive about this process. They feel once again like they are being set up as guinea pigs for the advantage of the rest of the state, just like Labor did with the communities previously with the forward sale of their forest assets a number of years ago. Why have the Premier, the Labor Party and the Minister for Local Government not been open with the people of the South-East?

The dates of the local government elections are fixed. We know when they are going to be. No-one was surprised by these dates. Why, then, is the government introducing this legislation now, at the last minute? Because it certainly seems like all indications are, as I have said, that this is a thought bubble, a poorly planned process, which has the potential to undermine the opportunity for council boundary change opportunities in the future.

A thought bubble plebiscite with scant detail that creates more uncertainty for the good people of the District Council of Grant and the City of Mount Gambier, if it is unsuccessful, means that any future proposal, to quote the Premier, would be 'dead for a generation'. We have a Premier who is foisting a process onto the South-East community with little regard as to what impact it might have on that community. We have a lame duck Minister for Local Government I am incredibly disappointed by. He is either complicit or compliant.

There is already a clear process, as has been highlighted, for looking at local government boundaries. The South Australian Local Government Boundaries Commission is the independent body that assesses and investigates council boundary change proposals and makes recommendations to the minister. There are a number of ways this investigation can be triggered: firstly, by resolution of either house of parliament, or by the minister himself, or by a council or councils or, lastly, by the prescribed percentage of a number of eligible electors, that being the members of the community who are going to be impacted by that decision.

So this begs the question: why have the councils or communities of either the City of Mount Gambier or the District Council of Grant not put forward a proposal to the independent Local Government Boundaries Commission already? I can only assume that this is probably because these communities are not ready or prepared for this to happen.

If the local government minister believes that this process is flawed, then adjust the legislation. If the minister believes this process is not properly resourced, then advocate for the Treasurer to allocate more funding—in other words, just do your job. Why should the communities of the South-East be used as a test case once again? Where is the justification?

The Premier speaks about a 'peculiar situation', which is what he describes as a 'doughnutted council' when it comes to the arrangements with Grant and Mount Gambier, and we have heard the local government minister use similar language. This scenario is not unique to just these two councils. It is simply a case of a growth council—being Mount Gambier—being constricted by a surrounding council—being Grant. This circumstance happens in a number of different areas in our state. In fact, some of these communities have already put forward proposals for the boundaries commission to consider.

So the question must be: why not enable these communities, who are already looking at their council boundaries, instead of picking on those in the South-East, who seemingly are not yet ready for that process? If not that, why not include other communities within such a process? Why is this the Plebiscite (South East Council Amalgamation) Bill? Why not enable community involvement for other councils, ones that have already put forward proposals? Why? Because this bill was rushed. It is not thought out, it is non-strategic, it is a thought bubble.

Just two weeks ago, the Deputy Premier and environment minister made the decision to cancel the election of members of the landscape boards, which were legislated to be in the same election process as the local government elections. Her justification? Apparently concerns from the Electoral Commission around its workload and having elections for landscape boards at the same time as local government elections. Only two weeks later, this does not seem to be a concern. Adding more obligation and process onto the Electoral Commission in the middle of local government elections does not seem to be a concern when it suits a political narrative. How hypocritical, how pathetic.

Additionally, there is no insight into how much additional funding, if any, the state government is contributing to the cost of the ballot. One can presume that this ham-fisted, half-baked proposal we are debating today has been recklessly rushed through to try to save money by a minister who does not really know what is going on. I guess they assume that a ballot across the council area is not cheap, so, 'Let's try to pigeonhole this one in with the council elections.' Indeed, there is a financial obligation on councils that they have to budget for every four years, and councils and the ratepayers have to carry that cost.

One could rightly assume that because the state government is using this ballot for its own political games it would be helping to foot the cost. We do not know that from the bill we are debating; there is no clarity for ratepayers in Mount Gambier and Grant. The bill itself is shorter than the speech I am reading. Indeed, seemingly we could have a scenario where the government is forcing councils and communities to cover the cost of a ballot they do not want and have not asked for, one that could leave them more financially disadvantaged and, in the end, one that is no better than a glorified SurveyMonkey.

Why is the minister not showing the leadership that should have come with the position and salary he is privileged to have and have the aptitude to give this process a proper time for consideration free from the political noise which would inherently be within a community during a local council election? Is the Premier or the Minister for Local Government deliberately foisting this process onto the good people of the South-East at a time when there will be uncertainty and confusion about what outcome could be driven by different results?

The uncertainty is exacerbated by a poorly formed bill that gives no detail as to what the intention of the government is with whatever results come from a vote. What can the people of Grant expect from a vote? Will their perspective be appropriately recognised? Will the perspective of the larger Mount Gambier council population supersede the smaller population of the District Council of Grant? Is there an expectation that there will need to be a majority support from each council individually, or are the votes going to be collated to be counted? Is there a threshold for the percentage of the vote that must come in to provide enough direction, given that local government elections are not compulsory?

None of these questions has an answer. The people of the South-East are left in the dark. 'Trust us,' the Premier says to them. 'Trust us,' says the Minister for Local Government, 'We know best. Leave it with us. This is the process we need. We know best.' For them to be trying to rush the bill through in this short time frame should be a point of shame to the minister. He should be showing more respect to the communities and the councils of the Limestone Coast.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (16:08): There are a couple of things to put on the record in the really quite peculiar circumstances in which we find ourselves this afternoon. We have a short bill that is going to be jammed through this place: all stages in one go, a full bore suspension of standing orders, circumstances of urgency and all the rest of it. That is at a time when we are in the second sitting day after so many weeks away from the place that people can barely remember what the place looked like when we were last here and a government agenda so empty that we are not turning beyond about half a page in order to navigate through it.

Yet this bill has been presented almost (and I say 'almost' advisedly) out of the blue. It is a good thing, as the member for Flinders observed, that it runs to all of 2½ pages because none of us—with the exception of (and I will come to it in a minute) myself and the member for Flinders—have had anything more than a moment's opportunity to look at it, let alone consider the subject matter it is proposed we traverse.

I was pleased to hear that the minister, in his remarks in the second reading just now, gave us the assurance that if this bill passes through the place it will lead us to a part 2 process under the Local Government Act. We might all be relieved to hear that, because no-one would be surprised in the context of this piece of legislative adventurism to hear that somehow the result of this might also abrogate the part 2 process should it provide whatever level of evidence somebody might wish to rely upon, the result of the plebiscite having been run.

It is always interesting to engage in processes that will further elucidate a case for taking a step, or not, to proceeding with reform and in what form. In these peculiar circumstances that affect people, electors, living within local government areas, one might expect to see perhaps a petition coming along to this parliament or some sort of expression of will through those elected members of local councils, indeed the councils themselves, and that is precisely what part 2 provides for in the commission process. Indeed, it provides for the minister of the day to bring such a proposal to the commission or for the parliament to move that way.

So I will concede straightaway, accept and embrace that there is a role for this state parliament in considering what measures might be applied to local government boundaries, to the possibility of amalgamation, to the creation of new councils and so on. There is that role. I will listen very carefully in that sense. I think the member for Mount Gambier in particular has an important voice to this parliament in this particular circumstance.

Here we are with this bill, presented after what has been this extraordinarily long break away from this parliament. The member for Flinders and I in our respective portfolio capacities were afforded a briefing in relation to the bill and an opportunity to engage in some back and forth about its effects and so on in about the middle part of the afternoon yesterday. So the member for Flinders and I have that much advantage over the rest of the members of the parliament, and I think it is fair to say that the two of us have done our best to grapple with the concept that is in mind.

I think neither of us is entirely unfamiliar with the notion that from time to time questions might come along that are worthy of consideration, but nowhere near rising to the heights of a piece of legislation proposed to be run through this place, at no notice and out of the blue after a long break, and against the background of no or nearly no indication of what has brought it about.

So it is really quite unsatisfactory for this minister and this government to be conducting themselves in the way they are in this space. I think without more—and there was not any evidence of it in the minister's second reading explanation just now—it risks contaminating any subsequent process in terms of a reflection by those who are required to participate in it on the way in which it was jammed in front of them.

If it comes to an outcome where there is some equivocal voice expressed by one or both of the council areas as a result of this, the question will be legitimately asked, 'How reliable an expression of a view of these residents is that and how good a foundation in evidence is this for proceeding further?'

I do not hear the minister say that there is a predestined consequence, including any predestined part 2 consequence, that will flow from this and I do not hear the minister say, 'Well, we know that the result we are expecting is X or Y and that's against a background of a whole lot of lead-up and so this is just firming up our case.' That is unsurprising because nobody has heard it talked about at all until yesterday afternoon.

Here we are in the state parliament, on the second day of sitting, back after a really long break, with a new government with not a lot else to talk about. Could it not have brought this to our attention any time sooner than yesterday? I am afraid to say that there are really scant grounds that have been presented by the minister for what is a really thoroughgoing proposal to legislate specifically in order to acquire some information that may or may not lead to a section 28 proposal being put to the commission in due course.

If we are to proceed fairly shortly through the committee stage—and I think we are—to analyse what is going on and to have an opportunity to ask the minister about these things, I just foreshadow that I would be interested to know what thought has been given to the appropriate source of any subsequent reference that might be made. Who does the minister envisage might be the party to approach the commission under section 28? Is the minister committed to doing that? Is the minister giving us some indication of a desire to bring a question before the parliament subsequent to any such plebiscite? These are all things that are unknown, and they are certainly unknown on the face of the bill and they are no more informed with the benefit of the second reading explanation.

It is not a matter for me to stand here and talk about the particular whys and wherefores of the process that is going to be provided for in the bill. It is really only to emphasise, and to do so for the purposes of the record, what exactly has happened over now a little more than 24 hours to get to this point and sound a note of caution about the importance of respecting regional communities from the point of view of this parliament, highlighting that, far from jamming through some legislation with a view to this particular discrete outcome, it would do us all a great service to have had at least some framework ahead of this time.

There we are. That is as far as we have come. There will be an opportunity in a few minutes to ask some more particular questions and I look forward to that opportunity.

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (16:19): I rise to make a brief contribution to the bill. I will only be five minutes and then cede to the newest member of this house. I want to put on record a few points. First of all, my position is firmly against forced amalgamations. Therefore, in terms of moving forward with this bill, it has long been a topic of conversation in our community around the idea of amalgamations. I am sure that processes will be examined throughout the parliamentary process, as they should be, and that learnings will develop and come out of this process going forward with either this piece of legislation or others.

I want to come back to the essence of this bill. It is a very simple question, and it is part of the plebiscite: 'Do you support the examination of an amalgamation between the District Council of Grant and the City of Mount Gambier to form a single council?' The point, 'Do you support the examination of' is a really important one. For years, when people talked about benefits or disadvantages of a hypothetical amalgamation of these two councils, it was really based on somebody's opinion. It was based on what they think may be the benefits of that amalgamation.

We have never got into the point of having the books opened, having community consultation and what that might look like, and one of the reasons is that it comes at a huge expense. This process is tipped to cost about $400,000. In my mind, it makes sense to ask the community whether or not they even want to examine this. If they do not want to examine it, I can tell you right here, right now, I will not support any amalgamation of the two councils. It is a very first step. If people do not want to examine it, why would you spend any money going into the deeper understandings of cost-benefit analysis, community consultations, what the opportunities may or may not be? It is a very important step to ask the people whether or not they even want to consider this examination in the first place.

If it comes back no, I think it is pretty obvious. If it comes back, 'Yes, we want to examine the possibility or the options for an amalgamation of these two councils,' then that enacts a whole series of work that needs to be done in terms of the Productivity Commission looking at both councils: where the savings may be made, what the benefits are, what the negatives would be, community consultation, bringing the community together so that these things can be put forward, but, more importantly, the community's voice can be heard.

Even if it is, 'Yes, we want to examine this,' it is not a fait accompli that it is going to happen. If the Productivity Commission comes back and says, 'Well, listen, the benefits are marginal; both operate quite efficiently, quite separately. There's little duplication because they are dealing with different types of roads: one is more looking at gravel and grading and others are looking at bitumen. So there are limited benefits,' in my mind, we would not go any further. Even if it is a yes and the Productivity Commission comes back and says it has limited benefits, it would still be a no as far as I am concerned.

We could also have situation where it is a yes, and the Productivity Commission comes back and says, 'Yes, there are savings, and here they are detailed and outlined in a thoughtful and well-presented way, but the community consultation is overwhelmingly negative.' In my mind, we would not progress past that position either. In terms of debating this bill, if the community wants to examine what the options could be, all that is is the enacting of a spend of money to find out the facts and for the community to then decide whether or not they want to continue down that path.

I thought it was really important to put on the record that this is not voting for an amalgamation of two councils: all this is saying is, 'Do you want to examine it?' Quite often, and this is true of many situations, the loudest voice always seems to be the one that sits in your ear. The thing I like about this process is it is going to all ratepayers who get a vote and have their chance to vote. Do I know what the numbers are going to be? No, I do not. However, in terms of a democratic process, what is wrong with just asking the question and then having the community feed back what their desires are?

It might be that it does not go any further than asking the question. I think I have spelt out that this is not a fait accompli. There is no predetermined outcome for this, certainly not as far as I am concerned. I am quite supportive of asking the question to see if the community supports the examination of an amalgamation of the two councils.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (16:26): I will make a very brief contribution to this debate in support of the bill. Firstly, I would like to contrast the discussion to date. On the one hand, the opposition has been very alarmist and read all sorts of things into this bill, compared with the local member for this area, who has provided a very thoughtful consideration of what he sees are the benefits of this process. If I were going to rely on anybody's contribution, I think the local member's contribution would outweigh those on my right.

There are a couple of things that need to be mentioned, which I think the opposition spokesperson talked about. He spoke about the cost in comparing this to the landscape boards. The difference between this and the landscape board elections, which were deferred by the minister, is quite simple: this is going to two council areas. The ballot paper is the same. It goes to two identical things, which the Electoral Commissioner would be involved in anyway.

The difference with the landscape boards is that they have different boundaries, different electoral rolls, etc., so there are a whole range of different processes. It is a separate process. They cannot be compared. They are like chalk and cheese. It is disappointing that the member who represents the opposition voice for local government did not understand that basic difference.

All this proposal does, as the member for Mount Gambier said, is provide a process for examination. The outcome of this process is important because it could empower both the councils and the community to act. I think that is important. That is something we have not thought about. This process could empower the community to inform its councils and, for those councils who are a bit reluctant to do anything, if it is a yes vote they go ahead and do it, and if it is a no vote it empowers the councils to say no and the communities to say no. It is an empowering process.

Despite what the member for Heysen has said, it is respectful of that local community. Nothing could be more respectful than asking the people directly for their views, their values, etc. At the moment, in reality because of the costs involved in the processes, the councils are the only people who have a say. My council is involved in a process at the moment that cost heaps of money, and I am not even sure if people actually support it because we have never been asked. We just have not been asked by our council.

Something I think is probably a good thing is that, as a side benefit, it could increase the number of people who go to vote in this election too. I think this will energise that community and encourage them to vote, which again will help those candidates who are running for this election and who are successful. It will help empower them to make the necessary decisions after the election because they can use the result of the plebiscite to say yes, we should continue, or no, people do not want it. Again, it is an empowering process.

It is an act of leadership to engage with the community and give them a say in the direction the community should go. It is giving people a voice to be heard when often they are not heard at all, and you get a chance to be heard at the very first stage of any process, and that is very important. Normally, people are asked to comment at the end of the process, when a lot of decisions have already been made, and it is often tick-a-box consultation. This plebiscite is actually consulting the community at the first steps before anything else happens.

What is also very important, and something the member for Heysen tried to muddy the waters about, is that this bill in no way abrogates the need for a second process under the existing Local Government Act. That process would go ahead, and there are a number of checks and balances in that process in itself. This is in addition to that. This gives the whole community an additional opportunity to have their voice heard.

Also what we could find out from this process is: does this actually inform us about how, perhaps, future processes could be held? There are some valuable lessons to be learnt from this process as well. It is not a new issue. It might be a new issue for the member for Heysen and it might be a new issue for the member for Flinders, but in the South-East this is not a new issue. This issue has been talked about in the South-East for decades, so it is not new. It might be new for the members of the opposition, but certainly it is not new for the community down there.

The other reason it is being held now is simple: to minimise the cost to the taxpayer. There is already an existing process in terms of the Electoral Commissioner. We piggyback that process, keep the costs down and we make sure that people are aware of it and get involved. With those few words, I would certainly encourage support for this bill.

Debate adjourned.