Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Burnside City Council BURNSIDE CITY COUNCIL The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH Legislative Council BURNSIDE CITY COUNCIL The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH (15:25): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for State/Local Government Relations questions about the Burnside council. Leave granted. The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH Legislative Council The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: On 1 August 2008, the chief executive of PIRSA, Geoff Knight, who was at that time responsible for state and local government relations, wrote a letter to the Mayor of Burnside, Wendy Greiner, which summarised a number of complaints against Burnside council, including the following: That the conflict between certain groups of councillors and the CEO is now at a level that the Council is dysfunctional; That the Council is placing inappropriate weight in a range of decisions on the views of a person who is neither an elected member nor a member of staff— The letter names the person; I will not do so at this stage. It continues: That various requests for information by certain councillors are being refused by the CEO; That the Council chose not to implement the recommendations from a report addressing allegations made against certain councillors, without good reason; That minor breaches of the Council's Code of Conduct by certain councillors have been subject to an overreaction by other councillors, motivated by revenge; That the revenge sought relates to failed planning ventures by— The letter names the unelected person. At this point I stress that this is a summary of allegations, not statements of fact or findings. Mr Knight continues: I have considered a number of possible conciliatory interventions, but it seems more appropriate to initiate a course of action that requires the Council to take responsibility and to demonstrate that the elected body can work together constructively, and with the administration. Should this not be possible, consideration will be given to recommending to the Minister an investigation pursuant to s272(1) of the Local Government Act 1999. However, before I recommend this course of action, I am providing the Council with an opportunity to make submissions in relation to the allegations made and summarised above...I strongly encourage the submission to represent a unanimous position of the Council and one that is approved by all councillors at a meeting... On 2 July 2009, almost a year later, the minister wrote to Mayor Wendy Greiner advising that she is inclined to appoint an investigator but is giving the council an opportunity to explain its actions and make submissions. That letter listed a number of concerns, including: the failure of the council to resolve the friction between elected members, notwithstanding a new code of conduct and independent investigation and mediation; the further deterioration in relationships between parties despite the various actions taken by the council as evidenced by current litigation between elected members; the circumstances surrounding the CEO's resignation and reinstatement and the effect that this may be having on councillors' abilities to bring an impartial mind to their deliberation; recent council meetings having to be adjourned due to a lack of quorum apparently caused by members abandoning meetings before their close; suggested leaking of confidential council information; and bullying and harassment between elected members in meetings, between elected members and members of the public gallery, and between elected members and staff of the council. I note that in the letter of 2 July there is no mention of the concerns about the influence of an unelected person. My questions are: 1.	Did the minister receive a submission that represented the unanimous position of the council, as required by Mr Geoff Knight in his letter to the mayor of 1 August 2008? 2.	If not, why did she not commence the process of investigation in 2008? 3.	Did council provide a submission that addressed all matters identified by Mr Geoff Knight in his letter to council, including the influence of an unelected person on council decision-making? 4.	If not, why didn't the minister commence the process of investigation in 2008? 5.	Is the minister aware that councillors and residents have continued to complain about the influence of an unelected member of the community on council up to the present day? 6.	If the minister is aware, why didn't she ask Mayor Greiner to address these concerns in her letter to Mayor Greiner of 2 July 2009? 7.	If the minister decides to investigate Burnside council under section 272 of the act, will the minister undertake to include the issue of the influence of an unelected person on the decision-making of Burnside council in that investigation? The Hon. G.E. GAGO Legislative Council Minister for State/Local Government Relations Minister for the Status of Women Minister for Consumer Affairs Minister for Government Enterprises Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Energy) (15:29): I thank the honourable member for his question. I have already put on record today the three steps that I am required to take under the Local Government Act to pursue a formal investigation. The Burnside council has certainly had a history of problems, which preceded my time as minister. However, my understanding is that certain problems were looked at earlier on in the piece and were identified. The council was requested to respond to those. My understanding is that it did, and I will need to check the records for this, but I believe that its response was to invite the government to investigate the issues involved. From there—and, again, these were arrangements that were put in place largely by my predecessor, and I will have to check the details of this for accuracy—my understanding is that there was an agreement that the council would deal with these problems through a process of conflict resolution and mediation. My understanding is that it actually employed someone to come in to the council. I cannot remember the name of the person now; Kelly comes to mind, but I will check regarding the person who was responsible for leading that conflict management and mediation. I understand that quite an extensive process was undertaken by council and counsellors to participate in that process, at the end of which my understanding is that they reported to or wrote to the minister and determined that things had progressed well and that the matters were in hand and being resolved and fixed. My understanding is that, with further developments, that process then broke down to such a degree that council members lost confidence in it and it was disbanded. As I said, I need to check the detail of that, because my memory is sketchy, particularly on those things that happened when I was not minister. Certainly, my understanding is that, as I said, the problems had been protracted and that a great deal has been put in place to assist that council to resolve its own problems. That is how it should be; the state government should not be heavy handed. We should assist local government to manage and deal with its own problems, obviously within certain standards and certain parameters. I believe that I have certainly given Burnside council every opportunity to do that. Given that that process was put in place, and albeit that it did not appear to have a happy ending, nevertheless, again from that I had to determine that I had a reasonable belief that there were still problems, so it was a matter of adhering to absolutely proper and correct process. I believe that, if I had listened to the advice of the Hon. David Winderlich earlier in the piece, this investigation could possibly have been tossed out on the grounds of poor process. So, thank you, the Hon. Mr Winderlich, but no thank you; I actually want this thing to have legs and to make it to the finish line. Due process is most important. I know there are honourable members here who want a witch-hunt; well, not on my shift. We need to identify problems clearly; they need to be investigated thoroughly; and absolute due process to all parties needs to be adhered to. The Local Government Act is quite clear about responsibilities and obligations in appointing an investigator, and they are the steps that I am most carefully and cautiously undertaking so that the integrity of any investigation that might occur out of this process is a proper one and cannot be challenged. So, thank you, the Hon. David Winderlich, for your advice, but no thank you.