<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>Legislative Council</name>
  <date date="2009-12-03" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>51</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>3</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>Legislative Council</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="4285" />
  <endPage num="4372" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Bills</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Local Government (Accountability Framework) Amendment Bill</name>
      <text id="20091203bddd500ce8be4be090001103">
        <heading>LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK) AMENDMENT BILL</heading>
      </text>
      <subproceeding>
        <name>Final Stages</name>
        <text id="20091203bddd500ce8be4be090001104">
          <heading>Final Stages</heading>
        </text>
        <text id="20091203bddd500ce8be4be090001105">The House of Assembly agreed to the bill with the amendment indicated by the following schedule, to which amendment the House of Assembly desires the concurrence of the Legislative Council:</text>
        <text id="20091203bddd500ce8be4be090001106">
          <inserted>No. 1. Clause 27, page 14, lines 5 to 40, page 15, lines 1 to 18—Delete subclauses (2), (3) and (4)</inserted>
        </text>
        <text id="20091203bddd500ce8be4be090001107">Consideration in committee.</text>
        <talker role="member" id="574">
          <name>The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20091203bddd500ce8be4be090001108">
            <by role="member" id="574">The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY:</by>  I move:</text>
          <text id="20091203bddd500ce8be4be090001109">
            <inserted>That the House of Assembly's amendment be agreed to.</inserted>
          </text>
          <page num="4355" />
          <text continued="true" id="20091203bddd500ce8be4be090001110">
            <inserted>This amendment deletes subclauses (2), (3) and (4) of clause 27. These three subclauses are not only flawed in concept but also unworkable in practice. They invite council ratepayers to take up a petition to prevent a council from revoking the community land status of a parcel of community land. The clause goes on to describe how a petition might trigger a poll of electors, but it is obvious from the structure of these three subclauses that a poll of electors would never be held.</inserted>
          </text>
          <text id="20091203bddd500ce8be4be090001111">
            <inserted>Under the amendment, it is the receipt of a petition itself that stops any proposal to revoke community land status. A poll of electors is not required; the petition alone thwarts any previous decision of the elected council to revoke community land status. A poll of electors is an option the council might in theory choose to pursue to restart the process. However, if a council were to receive a petition with more than the prescribed number of signatures, it would be an exercise in futility then to conduct a poll of electors to try to overturn the demands of the petitioners.</inserted>
          </text>
          <text id="20091203bddd500ce8be4be090001112">
            <inserted>Under voluntary voting, the results of any simple majority poll will be skewed towards rejection, opponents being more motivated to vote than those who agree or who do not have an interest. There is no minimum turnout figure for the results of the poll to be valid. Any poll, therefore, would predictably endorse the position taken in the petition.</inserted>
          </text>
          <text id="20091203bddd500ce8be4be090001113">
            <inserted>The cost of a poll varies according to the size of the council, but the LGA has estimated that, even for a small council, a poll of electors would cost at least $26,000. For a large council, a poll could cost as much as $200,000. The cost of the poll would, in most cases, outweigh any financial advantage to the community of any proposed dealing with the land.</inserted>
          </text>
          <text id="20091203bddd500ce8be4be090001114">
            <inserted>It is difficult to imagine any circumstances in which a council would choose to hold such a poll. Therefore, these three subclauses create a dangerous and unworkable situation, whereby a mere petition could overturn the decision of an elected council, and that is why I seek the support of the committee to agree to the amendment to delete the subclauses, as received from the House of Assembly.</inserted>
          </text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="2742">
          <name>The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="20091203bddd500ce8be4be090001115">
            <by role="member" id="2742">The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK:</by>  On behalf of my colleague the Hon. David Ridgway, I indicate that we will be agreeing to the amendment.</text>
          <text id="20091203bddd500ce8be4be090001116">Motion carried.</text>
        </talker>
      </subproceeding>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>