LOCAL GOVERNMENT (NOTICE OF MEETINGS) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (17:26): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Local Government Act 1999. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (17:26): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

One of the wonderful things about local government in this state is that almost all meetings of council and their committees are open to the public. Residents and ratepayers have the expectation that they can walk into most of those meetings, sit down and watch their elected representatives at work and, in some cases, keep a watchful eye on them, but to do that they have to know that the meetings are happening.

This right to know about these meetings is enshrined in section 84(2) of the Local Government Act, which requires the CEO to give notice of meetings of council by placing an agenda for a meeting on public display at the principal office of the council at least three days before the date of the meeting. However, this section of the act is outdated. It has not caught up with amalgamations, which means that many residents live a long way from the principal council offices. In the case of country councils, the principal office can be 100 kilometres or more away, and this section of the act does not explicitly refer to committees and subcommittees of the council.

My amendments to sections 84 and 88 would require that a copy of the agenda of council and committee meetings be placed on public display at each office of the council that is open to the public during ordinary business hours. This matter of display of meeting dates in council offices came to my attention because a constituent contacted my office to complain that a meeting of a committee of the Copper Coast council in Kadina was not advertised at the council offices in Moonta, 17 km away. The council had complied with the Local Government Act, but complying in these minimal circumstances is not conducive to community interaction and accountability. My amendments to sections 84 and 88 would also require that the CEO ensure that the notice and agenda for such meetings be placed on a website.

Having checked the web, my staff found that in 12 councils chosen at random (six city councils and six country councils), most do use the internet for notification of at least some of their meetings. Mitcham, Playford, Walkerville, Adelaide and Burnside appear to advertise the full range of meetings. You would expect this of larger city councils, but there are surprising anomalies such as Norwood, Payneham and St Peters Council which displays council and DAP meeting dates, but not those of other council committees. The Copper Coast, Goyder and Ceduna councils advertise all council and committee meetings. Light Regional Council advertises council and DAP meetings and refers to other committees that meet as required but, as of yesterday, none of these were advertised.

Port Augusta City Council advertises council and DAP meetings and the meetings of the corporate services and infrastructure committee. They seem to have only one committee, which is quite unusual, or perhaps they have others but do not advertise them. The City of Port Lincoln advertises a range of meetings but also refers to committees that meet as required. It is not clear whether these are advertised. While the use of the internet to advertise council and committee meetings appears to be widespread, it is not universal and also not consistent. My Copper Coast constituent asserts that information about the times and location of meetings is not always accurate. Making this a legal requirement would ensure councils do lift their game on this front.

In summary, under current legislation councils can minimise scrutiny simply by doing the minimum, that is, by displaying notices and agendas only in their principal office. The Copper Coast is a good example. This council could—I am not saying that it did—hold a meeting in Kadina affecting people in Moonta and Port Hughes and only display the notice in the Kadina town hall. The people in Kadina would not care about the meeting and the people of Port Hughes would not know about it. My amendment closes that loophole. It will have no impact on the majority of councils already doing this, but if any councils are trying to avoid scrutiny this will create greater openness. It will force councils trying to avoid scrutiny to be more open and will cost almost nothing to implement. It is a sensible move ensuring local government accountability and promoting community involvement.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.