Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Ministerial Statement Burnside Council BURNSIDE COUNCIL The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY Legislative Council Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for State/Local Government Relations The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (15:04): I seek leave to make a ministerial statement. Leave granted. The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY Legislative Council The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: As members are aware, Mr Ken MacPherson was appointed in July 2009 to conduct an independent inquiry into allegations raised about the conduct of council members at The City of Burnside. It also needs to be remembered that, for some time, legislative councillors were calling for the government to launch an investigation under section 272 of the Local Government Act 1999. Furthermore, individual elected members of the Burnside council, including the plaintiffs, supported an investigation. The action taken by the minister was the first time section 272 of the act had been tested and therefore such an investigation was unprecedented. The minister responsible acted upon the best possible advice when initiating the inquiry. At no time did the Burnside council itself challenge the appointment of the investigators or the terms of reference. The initial term of the investigation was expected to take 12 weeks from the beginning of August 2009. This was extended in October 2009 and again in January 2010 at the request of the investigator, based on the volume of evidence he received, including from the plaintiff's themselves. As members are aware, the investigation produced a draft provisional report on 24 August 2010, which, for the purposes of natural justice, was provided in full or in part under confidentiality agreements to all those persons whose interests were potentially adversely affected by reference to them in the report. This was to enable them to respond. It was also at this point in time that the six plaintiffs decided to apply to the court for permission to carry out a judicial review of the actions of the minister and the investigator, prompting a further delay in the progress of the inquiry. It is interesting to note that the six councillors had not brought their actions either when the investigation was launched or within the six-month time period for judicial review. However, they were granted an extension of time by the court. The Full Court of the Supreme Court has since delivered a judgment in these proceedings to the effect that three aspects of the terms of reference were found to be invalid and that the terms of reference were required to be read narrowly. However, the ruling held that the minister had reason to believe that there was basis for investigation and that the council was not acting as a representative, informed and responsible decision-maker in the interests of the community. Local government elections across the state, including elections for the Burnside council, were concluded on 12 November 2010, that is, during the period the draft report was distributed to interested parties and while the judicial review was proceeding. One of the six plaintiffs who brought the action for judicial review chose to stand again for the Burnside council and was defeated, while the other plaintiffs did not renominate. Not one of the previous Burnside councillors was re-elected at the 2010 election. This led to the election of an entirely new council, remedying the problems of friction between the previous council which gave rise to complaints and which led to the independent inquiry. The election result brought to an end the intractable dysfunctional relations on the council. The court last week ordered the government pay the cost of the five plaintiffs and pay 20 per cent of the costs of the sixth plaintiff. The actual quantum of the costs payable by the government with respect to the court action is still to be confirmed. It is already a matter of public record that the cost of the investigation to date is approximately $1.3 million. Once all the costs are received by the plaintiff's legal representatives and then collated, I will advise this chamber of the total cost of the investigation and the court action, but in the meantime I will not participate in speculation about the cost. Given the court's ruling and the outcome of the election, it is appropriate to conclude this inquiry. The Full Court's ruling is such that the draft report would require extensive revision to excise those areas related to the terms of reference ruled invalid before a final report can be published. Further, plaintiffs have not responded to the investigator and there would be further delays and possibly further legal challenges if the inquiry was to proceed further. This would be a lengthy and potentially costly process, and I do not believe the public interest can be further served in light of the court's ruling and the outcome of the November 2010 elections by continuing toward that end. Based on advice available to me, and having regard to the public interest, I have decided the inquiry should not proceed. I am very mindful of the continuing suppression order in relation to the provisional draft report, and I hope that honourable members will be respectful of the court's order. I will not undermine that order by lifting the exemption under the Freedom of Information Act that applies to the documents associated with the investigation. That exemption was put in place to protect the integrity of the investigation and the people affected by it, including staff of the council and other witnesses, and for the same reasons the suppression order applies I shall not disturb the exemption. The experience gained from this inquiry, the first instigated under the new act, has also focused attention on the checks and balances required to ensure that local government, both elected members and council officers, maintain the highest standard of conduct expected of them by the South Australian community. These are issues currently being considered by the Attorney-General as part of the work being carried out to create a new office of public integrity. Today I have also met with representatives of the Local Government Association and the Mayor of Burnside, Mr David Parkin. We agreed that, beyond the Burnside council matters, there are a number of issues that need to be discussed in relation to our system of local government. I look forward to working closely with the LGA on these issues.