LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 10 September 2009. Page 3162.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (15:50): I rise on behalf of the opposition to speak to this bill. This measure was introduced by the minister back in September this year and has been sitting on the Notice Paper to allow the Local Government Association to consult with its member councils. While we are happy to support the second reading of this bill, I will outline a number of concerns that have been raised with the opposition. The LGA is having a briefing with the minister's representatives this afternoon. There are still a few outstanding issues that need to be resolved and, if they are not resolved between the government and the LGA, I will be moving some amendments.

In December 2008 a proposals paper 'Reforms to improve the accountability framework for local government in South Australia' was distributed for consultation. This paper outlined proposals to amend the legislative framework for internal and external review of council administration and financial management. This bill flows from that paper.

Increased community concerns are being raised around the operations and decisions of a number of councils. There were issues regarding the City of Burnside, the ministerial inquiry or investigation into the District Council of Yorke Peninsula, the issues raised today in question time in relation to the City of Charles Sturt, the Campbelltown City Council and the District Council of Robe–to name just a few. I suspect that the issues regarding the City of Charles Sturt will dominate question time in this place for the next couple of weeks.

Clearly, there has been significant community interest in the way that some councils operate and particularly where perhaps they have not consulted properly. In the case of the City of Charles Sturt, the Hon. David Winderlich has described it as perhaps an overtly integrated subsidiary of the Australian Labor Party—not that being a member of a political party in itself is a reason for raising concern but, clearly, there are some issues around the City of Charles Sturt which I have raised in this place over a number of years.

There is an expectation in the community that councils will operate in a very open and transparent manner and provide good governance and maintain high standards in all aspects of their operations including service delivery, management and accountability. This bill goes some way, after all the consultation, to addressing some of the concerns that have been highlighted throughout that process.

We have all been members of local communities and our three levels of government have served this country particularly well but, from time to time, all levels of government need to have a review of their operations and functions to make sure that their decisions are accountable, that the right framework is in place for councils to operate and that there is some transparency in relation to those decisions.

I will briefly go through a number of clauses that have been outlined in the consultation we have had. The LGA has contacted the opposition, and the first clause that it raises some concern with is clause 4, relating to the amendment of section 4. The LGA opposes this clause, which it says would have a negative impact on rating income by extending the 75 per cent mandatory rebate under section 161 to all registered community housing associations. Councils with a higher proportion of economically disadvantaged ratepayers claim they would be affected. The Onkaparinga, Holdfast Bay, Salisbury, Tea Tree Gully, Adelaide and Port Adelaide councils estimate the cost to their rate revenue to be in excess of $1 million per annum. I indicate that, while we are sympathetic to a number of the LGA's concerns, we will be supporting the bill and the clause as it stands, rather than the LGA's position.

Clauses 5, 17 and 18 are amendments to various sections of the act. In particular, clause 5 is an amendment of section 8—'Principles to be observed by a council'. The LGA supports and seeks a definition of 'good public administration'. The minister might like to put on the record the definition of 'good public administration'.

Clause 8 amends section 48—'Prudential requirements for certain activities'—by inserting subsection (aa1), which provides that a council must develop and maintain prudential management policies, practices and procedures for the assessment of projects to ensure that the council maintains certain specified standards.

The bill also extends the basis on which the council must obtain and consider a report that addresses certain prudential issues to include where the council considers that it is necessary or appropriate. Further provisions are included that state that the report must not be prepared by a person who is employed by the council or has an interest in the relevant projects.

Our understanding from the consultation is that the Local Government Association supports the intent of this clause but seeks to be included in the role of developing model documentation for ministerial approval. The LGA has received legal advice that current exemptions from requiring the preparation of prudential reports under section 48(3) do not extend to community waste water management scheme projects, such as the CWMS.

The LGA believes that this is an unintended consequence of the drafting and asks whether it should be rectified by the specific inclusion of community waste water management scheme projects in the listed exemptions. We would like a response from the minister about allowing the LGA to be involved in preparing that model documentation.

Clause 17 amends section 132. Again, this clause talks about the definition in relation to access to documents. The LGA and the opposition would like to know the minister's definition of a 'reasonable time'. Clearly, 'a reasonable time' is a little ambiguous; it could be very much up to the interpretation of the minister of the day. So, we would like to know what the minister defines as a reasonable time. In clause 18, which amends section 132A, the definition of 'good public administration' is once again sought, just for clarification.

Clause 22 amends section 155—'Service rates and service charges'. This is one of the LGA's greatest concerns. The LGA thinks this clause has been poorly drafted and that it is defective, confusing and clearly reactive and overly restrictive and would like it to be deleted. I am not sure whether the opposition will be moving to delete it, but an amendment is proposed to this section to provide that it refer specifically to waste collection services.

This results from the minister's concerns about the District Council of Yorke Peninsula's waste collection charges in that the same charges apply to residents whose bins or rubbish is collected from their property as opposed to rural residents who take their rubbish to a central depot yet are charged the same rate, which is inherently unfair.

The Local Government Association is dissatisfied that the minister has decided to introduce this section into the bill without consultation as, reportedly, after 12 months of operation, the vast majority of residents are happy with the service. We would like further clarification from the minister about how that would work and whether there could be some sliding scale that might more appropriately deal with the issue. So, if you receive the door-to-door service then, sure, I think most of us would expect to pay for it.

Often what rural residents do, Mr Acting President, because I suspect that you have rarely been out in the country to see this, is they congregate their waste bins in groups. I recall a private operator doing some waste collection down the back road from my property. He had an arrangement where seven or eight farmers, I think, brought their bins to that particular site on a particular day of the week and they were collected. He was a private operator who had an arrangement with them per bin. You will also get some people who may be levied and rated who would not use the system at all, but nonetheless would possibly still pay a small rate to make sure that the community had that benefit.

I recall in my own community we had the Wolseley RSL and recreation and sporting club, which was a community club based around the Wolseley area. We had a community oval, some tennis courts, a playground, public toilets and a watering scheme that provided reticulated water to some of the residents of Wolseley. To develop that the community club took out a significant loan at the time, I think it was $60,000 or $70,000, and to fund that a special rate was struck by council over that end of the district, so that everybody in the community paid.

It was a certain rate in the dollar, so the bigger land owners would have paid more than the small home owner in the little township of Wolseley, but it seemed a very fair and equitable way to be able to get a guaranteed income stream—it was a fraction of a cent in the dollar—for the community club, which seemed to make a lot of sense. Invariably, in country communities like that you would always see the same people raising the money, who are always at the working bees, cutting the sandwiches, catering for the weddings, doing all the work, and yet the whole community benefited from it. As the volunteers in the community were getting older it was seen as a very sensible way that everybody participated in that particular way of funding that project.

I would be interested to get the minister's response to make sure that any legislative change would not impact on that type of special rate struck by a council to provide a service to a particular community. We will be looking at some amendments if the LGA does not get a satisfactory response from the minister.

I also note that the LGA supports a number of the amendments, but in particular clause 36, the amendment of section 270, which is 'Procedures for review of decisions and requests for services.' The LGA supports this but requests a role in developing the model documentation with the minister. Again, I would like a response from the minister that she is prepared to embrace what the LGA is asking for, that is, some extra consultation in developing these particular bits of model documentation.

We also have some questions relating to investigations and clause 38, which is 'Insertion of sections 271A and 271B.' The LGA seeks amendments to ensure the reasons for the minister requiring the information from council are provided and that an investigation is not conducted by the Ombudsman and the minister at the same time. The opposition's position is that, if the Ombudsman is conducting an investigation, it does not see any reason why the minister, if he or she feels that way inclined at the time, should not conduct an investigation if he or she sees fit to do so.

Clause 39 is an amendment to section 272, 'Investigation of a council'. The LGA seeks amendments to section 272(6)(a) and clause 39(5) to require the minister to advise and consult with the council following the investigator seeking to broaden an investigation before agreeing to proceed. The LGA also seeks a definition of the word 'person' in section 272.

The opposition supports the LGA's position in relation to this. We have seen it with the Burnside council, where Mr Ken MacPherson is undertaking the investigation and where, if he feels it is appropriate, he will ask to broaden the investigation. The opposition believes that a council under investigation should be informed by the minister of any intention to broaden the investigation. We think that is a proper and reasonable requirement and, if the government does not address that matter, I indicate that we will move an amendment.

We support the amendment to the section involving action to be taken on a report. The LGA seeks amendments to ensure that councils have the right to provide reasons for not implementing the recommendation from the Ombudsman before the minister takes any action. We also support the amendment to section 274, relating to the investigation of a subsidiary, except for subsection (7a), to which the LGA seeks an amendment to require the minister to advise and consult with the subsidiary and consistent councils following advice from the investigator to broaden an investigation before agreeing to proceed. We support the LGA's position to advise and consult prior to that decision being made. I am sure that the minister is aware of that and that her advisers would have been informed of that by the LGA.

We are concerned about clause 45, involving an application to the Crown. Subsection (155)(2a) provides the power for regulations to be made removing the right of councils to apply service rates and charges in prescribed circumstances. Land such as national parks or unalienated land are expected to be exempted from levied service charges. The LGA supports the clause; but it seeks to be consulted regarding the proposed exemptions. We indicate that if the LGA is not happy with the exemptions we will consider moving some amendments.

The LGA supports clause 46, involving the amendment to schedule 2—provisions applicable to subsidiaries—but again seeks clarification on the process for applications for exemption. I will ask the minister to provide an answer in relation to that matter.

There is one last item that we have some concerns about. The LGA seeks an amendment to the bill enabling documents relating to a matter covered by a declared interest to be withheld from a council member with a conflict of interest, and it does so for their protection and that of the council concerned. This proposed amendment addresses identified deficiencies in the act in terms of requiring a council CEO to provide all members of council with a copy of council reports and related documents despite these documents directly relating to a matter in which a member may have previously declared an interest.

We would again like some clarification from the minister about exactly how that would work. We would be prepared to draft an amendment. It makes it a little unworkable if somebody, who has declared an interest and leaves the meeting and does not participate, at the next meeting is then provided with all the documents relating to the interest they have declared and to the same conflict that existed.

I will not prolong the debate any longer; I know that we have a number of things to consider. The government has agreed not to proceed beyond my second reading contribution. The Hon. David Winderlich has a contribution to make. I am certain that we will have a response from the LGA soon as to whether common sense has prevailed and some middle ground has been found. If not, we will be moving some amendments. With those few words, on behalf of the opposition, I support the second reading of the bill and look forward to the committee stage.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. Carmel Zollo.