Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time St Clair Land Swap ST CLAIR LAND SWAP The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH Legislative Council ST CLAIR LAND SWAP The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH (14:48): I have a supplementary question. Will the minister reject the council's application if the council's decision-making process has been marred by a conflict of interest? 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, Infrastructure and Energy ST CLAIR LAND SWAP 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) (14:48): It is a hypothetical question for a start. Members interjecting: The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. G.E. GAGO Legislative Council The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It is a hypothetical question. We know that democratic and administrative processes and safeguards have been put in place. If there is a question of a breach of legislation, an irregularity or some other improper or illegal activity, processes and safeguards are put in place, which the community has access to. I encourage members of the public, if they believe that there is any breach of legislation or irregularity in relation to the Local Government Act, or any other act for that matter, to come forward and lodge their complaints with the Ombudsman, who is the independent gatekeeper for these matters. We know that the Ombudsman is an independent statutory officer with his own powers and legislation. As I have said, the Ombudsman has powers to make full and preliminary investigations for all legitimate complaints put before the Ombudsman, which he or she is required to investigate. The Ombudsman must then report on any evidence of breach of duty or misconduct that might be part of any complaint put before them. I am confident that, in relation to any complaint the Ombudsman receives, he undertakes his responsibilities with a high degree of integrity, diligence and thoroughness. I am also confident that, if the Ombudsman has any concerns of which he needs me to be aware, he will take the necessary action that the act allows. I have statutory responsibilities to deal with the revocation application, and they involve my dealing with it in a timely way. I am not aware of any evidence of impropriety with respect to or in breach of the Local Government Act or any other act in relation to the revocation put before me. I put on the record that I am at the stage of considering the application by the Charles Sturt council. I have not completed the process, as I am still ensuring that the statutory requirements have been fulfilled. I am not aware of any evidence of any breach of the legislation. The processes of my statutory responsibilities and those of the Ombudsman are quite separate and mutually exclusive. I have no reason not to proceed with my statutory requirements, that is, to deal with my responsibilities in a timely way. We know that the act does not carry caretaker-type provisions (we have had those discussions in this place before, so I will not go through them in detail) particularly to be in place whilst an investigation is underway. The Ombudsman's investigations can take any length of time—up to 12 months or even more on occasion in certain circumstances, so it can be quite a lengthy process. I believe that around 27 full investigations were undertaken in 2008-09. Can you imagine, Mr President, if the business of council was waylaid every time an application or an investigation was before the Ombudsman? Councils could not perform their day-to-day responsibilities. As I said, they are democratically elected officials, and they have responsibilities under the act in relation to their ongoing work. I believe that it would simply paralyse the activity and business of local councils if, every time an investigation was before the Ombudsman, as the honourable member is suggesting, major decisions were stalled. I believe that it would be irresponsible of me not to fulfil my statutory responsibilities, that is, to proceed with the application for revocation in a timely, thorough and diligent way. The Hon. B.V. Finnigan Legislative Council The Hon. B.V. Finnigan: Connor Holmes must be in on it, too.