COPPER COAST DISTRICT COUNCIL

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. S.M. Kanck:

That this council—

1. Notes the serious and continuing allegations about the District Council of the Copper Coast in relation to the fairness and transparency of the process for the sale of council land in Owen Terrace, Wallaroo;

2. Further notes the limitations of the inquiry being conducted by the Office for State/Local Government Relations, in particular the fact that it is dependent on information provided by the District Council of the Copper Coast; and

3. Therefore refers the matter of the process used by the District Council of the Copper Coast in divesting itself of council land in Owen Terrace, Wallaroo, to the Ombudsman, under section 14 of the Ombudsman's Act, with particular reference to—

(a) whether all parties expressing an interest in the purchase of council land on Owen Terrace received equal and fair consideration;

(b) whether information provided by the council to account for its decisions was fair, accurate and consistent;

(c) whether any councillors that voted on decisions of council related to this matter had an actual or potential conflict of interest and, if they had, whether this was declared;

(d) whether the decision of the council on the divestment of council land complied with the council's stated specifications and objectives for the divestment of the land on Owen Terrace; and

(e) any other matter about the administration of the District Council of the Copper Coast identified in this inquiry that, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, is important to bring to the attention of the government and the parliament.

(Continued from 12 November 2008. Page 644.)

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (21:14): I rise to oppose this motion. As honourable members would be aware, minister Gago has informed the council that she has received complaints in relation to the District Council of the Copper Coast and that those complaints are being examined, and she has updated the council on the progress of such matters. The minister has made it clear that she intends to follow the proper and appropriate processes of inquiry in dealing with the complaints received. It is imperative that such processes be able to follow their due course.

Upon receipt of a complaint in June this year in relation to the process undertaken by the District Council of the Copper Coast to sell land located at Owen Terrace, Wallaroo, to Leasecorp for development of the Wallaroo town centre (which includes Woolworths), the minister sought advice from the Crown Solicitor's Office on the matter. Since that time, the Crown Solicitor's Office has been examining the matter and gathering relevant information. On the basis of advice from the Crown Solicitor's Office, the minister has written to the council on a number of occasions requesting certain information, and the council has always provided such information promptly.

Recently, the Crown Solicitor's Office recommended that the Government Investigations Unit be instructed to obtain further necessary information. Accordingly, a representative of the Government Investigations Unit recently visited the council to conduct further inquiries. The government investigator will provide a report on the matter to the Crown Solicitor who will, in turn, provide advice to the minister.

It should be recognised that the resources of the Office for State/Local Government Relations, the Crown Solicitor's Office and the Government Investigations Unit are being utilised to examine the very matter that the Hon. Sandra Kanck wishes to refer to the Ombudsman. These resources have been engaged in dealing with the matter for some time, and a parallel inquiry by the Ombudsman risks the duplication of work already being done.

At this point in the process, it is important to enable the Crown Solicitor's Office to complete its preliminary inquiries into this matter and to provide the minister with advice before making a decision on whether other avenues are warranted. Advice from the Crown Solicitor's Office is crucial before determining whether initiating a formal investigation, pursuant to section 272 of the Local Government Act 1999, is warranted or appropriate.

An investigator appointed by the Minister for State/Local Government Relations under that section, for the purposes of this investigation, has the power to require answers to questions, the power to require the production of books, papers or relevant records for examination and the power to retain those records. A person who refuses or fails to comply with such requirements is guilty of an offence, with a maximum penalty of $10,000. For these reasons, the government opposes the motion of the Hon. Sandra Kanck.

Whilst I appreciate her efforts in placing this important issue before the council, I believe that the current direction of inquiry is appropriate and that it should be allowed to run its course in the interests of fairness to the complainants, who require a proper response, and the officers charged with looking into these matters, and that they should be permitted the opportunity to provide well considered advice.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (21:18): I rise to speak to this motion on behalf of the Liberal members of the council. The Liberal Party will not be supporting the motion. However, we are not dismissive of the concerns raised. We share the Hon. Sandra Kanck's determination to ensure that the concerns raised are appropriately addressed. However, we differ on the appropriate process to that end.

The District Council of the Copper Coast, which encompasses a region including Wallaroo, Kadina and Moonta, is experiencing significant growth and development. A series of concerns and allegations have been raised against the council in relation to activities such as The Dunes development, the proposed community wastewater scheme, planning controls and governance issues. A matter involving The Dunes development is the subject of an investigation by the Anti-Corruption Branch. I stress that this motion does not relate to any of these matters directly, but they are part of the context.

The local council has been working for the redevelopment of the Wallaroo town centre and has decided to support a $30 million proposal by Leasecorp, which involves the sale of council-owned land. A number of concerns have been raised in relation to the project.

In response to those concerns, on 11 November 2008, the day before the Hon. Sandra Kanck moved her motion, the Minister for State/Local Government Relations made a ministerial statement to this council in which she announced, first, that following an Office for State/Local Government Relations examination of the redevelopment she had sought the advice of the Crown Solicitor's Office, and the Crown Solicitor's Office had instructed the Government Investigations Unit to acquire information. The minister advised that a formal investigation under section 272 of the Local Government Act 1999 had not been commenced at that time.

The minister advised the Legislative Council that, secondly, the District Council of the Copper Coast had agreed to a ministerial request to undertake an independent due diligence and governance audit to assess the council's statutory compliance with the Local Government Act and other relevant legislation. The council has engaged Wallmans Lawyers for this task. The council was to undertake an intensive community consultation engagement workshop for its elected members and senior staff. I understand that that was planned to take place today; in fact, I imagine it is happening as we speak.

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The minister confirms that it is, so I wish them well. On the following day, 12 November 2008, Ms Kanck moved the motion we are debating today. It proposes an Ombudsman's inquiry as an alternative to the preliminary inquiry which the minister has launched and which could, in turn, lead to a full ministerial investigation.

The Liberal Party will not support the motion. We do not support a parliamentary reference to the Ombudsman at this stage. The concerns raised in the motion are already under investigation by the government, and we consider that the approach it has taken is an appropriate response. We accept that it is not the only response available, but it is appropriate in the circumstances, and we await the outcome of those processes before we consider what other action may be appropriate.

In relation to the prospect of an Ombudsman's inquiry, I stress that a parliamentary reference is not the key to accessing the Ombudsman for those who have concerns. I understand that the Ombudsman has already received complaints from individuals relating to the redevelopment. Whilst it is reported that some are not sufficiently affected by the redevelopment to invoke the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, we understand that there are such individuals and that they could act to seek the Ombudsman's involvement without a parliamentary reference. However, I say to the government that this motion puts it on notice.

If inquiries and investigations are not credible and reliable, the opposition may be more favourably disposed to motions proposing alternative action in the future. In fact, I must admit that I am more favourably disposed than I was yesterday morning, when the parliamentary Liberal Party decided not to support the Hon . Sandra Kanck's motion, because later that day, in response to a question without notice on the Copper Coast from the Hon. Sandra Kanck, the Minister for State/Local Government Relations could not resist a characteristic Labor verbal barrage of the Hon. Sandra Kanck. However, amongst the spray, she clouded the situation and, I believe, damaged the credibility of the process. Referring to what she calls the 'second set of information' from the council, the minister advised:

That information is now back in my office and being looked at by crown solicitors. I have not received any further advice as to whether the information received to date would constitute a good reason to proceed with the formal investigation.

What is the minister saying? Is she saying that the information has been received by the Government Investigations Unit; if so, why did she call it 'my office'? This is an investigative unit in another minister's department which is meant to be independent of ministerial officers. Is the investigations unit collecting information not for her but for the Crown Solicitor's Office as part of its process to prepare advice for the minister? I urge the minister to be clear and consistent in providing information on the process. It is vital that these inquiries are credible and above board. I also indicate that the opposition expects full disclosure of the outcomes of the investigation.

On a related matter, I also indicate that the opposition is of the view that it is a bit rich for the government to criticise the Copper Coast council for a lack of expertise in consultation. Let me use as an example the government's treatment of the Rural City of Murray Bridge. The new prison was announced in September 2006. It came as a complete surprise to the local council, which had been told by the government that it would be informed before any announcement was made.

In fact, at a meeting with council in June 2006, the CEO of the Department for Correctional Services, Peter Severin, informed council that there were no plans for any site in South Australia at the time. In fact, he undertook to engage the council if and when Murray Bridge became an option for the new location. Within months, without any further advice to the council, the government announced the prison as the new site.

The council has repeatedly expressed its frustration at the need to deal with so many different ministers for various aspects of the development. The government has proved unable effectively to coordinate its work with the council. The council has suggested that coordination and cooperation would be facilitated by the council's having an observer present at the government's cross-agency steering committee meetings. This request has been refused.

Recently, the Mayor of the city happened to be in the gallery in the other place on the very day the Treasurer announced a major delay in the project; it was news to him. Again, the council was not advised. The opposition notes that the Copper Coast council has agreed to the minister's request to see how it could effectively engage with its community. I suggest the government takes a good hard look at itself; I would not be surprised if the Rann Labor government's shortcomings in relation to consultation and community engagement far exceeded that of the District Council of the Copper Coast.

The opposition awaits the outcomes of the government's consideration of the concerns in relation to the Wallaroo town centre development. In the meantime, it will not support this motion.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (21:26): I attended the public meeting at Wallaroo some months back, where several hundred residents gathered to express their concerns about the process that the council had gone through in relation to the town centre development—and it is that redevelopment that is the subject of the Hon. Sandra Kanck's motion.

On that occasion I was trying to judge not just the mood of the meeting but also the motivation of the people there; I was trying to work out whether they were several hundred people who were simply misguided loyalists of a local supermarket that had provided the sausages for generations of sausage sizzles and that had supported the community in lots of ways. Was this just a fan club for a local supermarket or did these people have genuine questions and concerns about the conduct of their council in the awarding of certain development rights to another consortium of would-be developers?

The impression I formed was that they were reasonable people asking reasonable questions who were not getting answers. The whole deal had a bit of a smell about it. I do not use the word 'corruption', but others were saying that it was a corrupt process. I went along playing a straight bat and with an open mind, trying to work out whether everything was above board, and it appeared to me that the questions they were raising were legitimate.

It was not my first visit to that area. I had been there before and had discussed issues, the same issues that the Hon. Sandra Kanck raised in her speech introducing the motion—things like the dunes development, the council's approach in relation to the proposed small desalination plant that was to provide golf course water, and a range of other issues as well. It seemed to me that it was more than coincidence that this particular council had issues in its governance arrangements and performance and, in particular, its consultation processes with local residents.

The question then arises: are the measures that have been put in place sufficient to get to the bottom of all these concerns? Certainly, there are matters involving the police, but they form no part of the honourable member's motion. We have also had the minister talking about the workshops for elected members and staff being conducted as we speak; that is a good initiative, but I do not think it is the answer to the questions raised in the honourable member's motion. We also had the independent inquiry being conducted by Wallmans Lawyers in relation to due diligence questions; but, again, I do not see that as the answer because my understanding is that that inquiry will simply look at what the council says it does and will not necessarily explore the views of those on the other side of various disputes and how they say the council has operated.

For me, the next question is whether or not the type of inquiry that the honourable member is proposing will get to the bottom of it. I accept what the Hon. Stephen Wade says, that you do not need a parliamentary referral for the Ombudsman to look at something. However, it seems to me that, in the pecking order of demands on the Ombudsman's time, a request from the parliament certainly ranks much higher than sundry pieces of correspondence from disgruntled residents which may fall on deaf ears in the Ombudsman's office. I have no information one way or the other as to how the Ombudsman has viewed any request that might have been made.

Certainly, if this parliament were to ask the Ombudsman to look at it, then the Ombudsman would look at it. I think that is an appropriate outcome. I should also say that I have not weighed into the merits of the development—whether one development proposal is better than another. I do not think that this inquiry will look into the merits either. It is not an inquiry about whether Woolworths or Foodland should be the preferred developer. It has nothing to do with whether or not the bowling club should move to a new location. It is simply about whether the processes that have been followed are fair, transparent and lawful.

This is clearly an issue that has divided the community. When the honourable member introduced this motion, one of the three reasons she gave as to why we should support it was that it will enable people to resolve the issue and move on. The honourable member said that it is in the interests of all concerned to resolve this matter so, ultimately, we can move on. I think that is important because, otherwise, we will end up with a repeat of the most remarkable rally that I have ever seen on the steps of Parliament House, where part of the steps close to the House of Assembly entrance were occupied by a couple of dozen people who had bussed down from Wallaroo, representing the bowling club and, I think, a few other sports clubs, who were in favour of the decision the council had made and, on the other side of the steps of Parliament House, again, a couple of dozen people taking a contrary view. There was another solitary protester standing in the middle on a completely unrelated issue.

The local member from another place was looking at constituents on either end of the steps taking a contrary view and wondering where he should stand. I think he spent time talking to the sole protester in the middle on an unrelated issue—I should not say that because the honourable member spent time with both lots of his constituents, as a local member should.

This has clearly divided the community and they do need a circuit-breaker mechanism. The minister has put in place a number of mechanisms that may go part way to resolving it but I think if we want a conclusive outcome then an inquiry by the Ombudsman will help people get some closure and it will determine whether proper processes have been followed and, hopefully, we can put this to bed and move on. It is not that I am reluctant to go back to the Copper Coast; it is a very beautiful part of South Australia and I found the people very hospitable on the several trips that have taken there, and I look forward to meeting them again. However, I would rather it not be to pursue this issue because I think, through supporting this motion, we can help put this issue to bed.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (21:33): I am disappointed to hear that this is not going to pass. I think it is important to place on the record that the department's preliminary inquiry is very limited. It is talking only to councillors and council staff and, even then, it is on a voluntary basis. It is where councillors put up their hand to say, 'Yes, I want to talk to these people from the minister's department.' It is also limited because it is not talking to the residents. I therefore think that the opposition's trust in the departmental process may be a little misguided. The Hon. Stephen Wade made the comment that he expects openness and transparency from the government and that the minister will provide all the results from her preliminary inquiry. However, we have not been given a guarantee that that will happen.

I am going to divide on this because I think it is important that the people of Wallaroo see how the members in this chamber line up on this issue. So many of them are saying, 'We must push ahead with this; it is the only way to resolve it.' I will be talking to whoever replaces me next year to encourage them to continue pursuing the matter.

The council divided on the motion:

Majority of six for the noes.

Motion thus negatived.