Local Government (Accountability and Governance) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 10 September 2015.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (16:27): I rise to speak on behalf—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Sorry, I was a little distracted there with some comments from behind me. I should not be listening to comments from behind me—

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): They are obviously out of order.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: They were not interjections: they were comments for my ears only, but they distracted me. I rise on behalf of the opposition to support the Local Government (Accountability and Governance) Amendment Bill 2015, and I will make some relatively brief comments.

This bill is not a contentious bill and my colleague, the member for Goyder in the other place and shadow minister for local government, has had extensive opportunity to consult and examine this bill in more detail in the other place, and I know there has been a reasonable amount of comment in that chamber. I would also like to acknowledge that this is the first bill introduced by minister Brock. It has been well over a year since he became a member of cabinet and although this bill probably does not go far enough in implementing the comprehensive local government reform that he canvassed in the other place, the opposition welcomes the progress, no matter how incremental and snail's-paced it may be.

My understanding is that this bill seeks to implement a few good practice provisions, and in part it does that by amending the conflict of interest and confidentiality provision of the Local Government Act. In regard to conflict of interest, the bill intends to make a number of legislative changes which will add another dimension to the existing clause. Generally speaking, this amendment seeks to broaden the scope of the conflict of interest as it relates to local government members.

At present, any conflict of interest is captured under one category, whether it be a minor or a greater conflict of one's interests. In doing so, this leaves only one course of action for council members with a conflict of interest, which is to declare that interest and leave the meeting. The amendment seeks to redefine a conflict of interest into different categories. These include material conflicts of interest and actual or perceived conflicts.

It is encouraging to see that the LGA has undertaken to provide detailed guidance, materials and training sessions to ensure the effect of this proposed bill is understood and ensures a smooth transition. I am very pleased that the LGA has done that. I think it is important for all elected members to be made aware of their rights and responsibilities and obligations, and I think it is important that any change in these provisions is well understood.

We also, I think only just a couple of days ago, received some draft amendments from the Hon. John Darley, which we are still looking at. I did check; they are not actually on file yet, but I think they have been provided to our office. His amendments are quite substantial in their impact, we believe, and require proper consultation with local government. I have sought advice from our shadow minister Steven Griffiths, the member for Goyder, about that, and asked whether he has had any consultation or conversations with the Local Government Association. As yet, I have not had a response from him.

I will just quickly outline the opposition's understanding of the amendments. Amendment 20A is to clause 28—The register of remuneration salaries and benefits. This register must be kept by the chief executive in relation to employees, but the information is currently only available to council members. This amendment would require the register to be published on the web.

The Hon. Mr Darley's second amendment, I think, is 20B—Publication of certain expenditure. This is a completely new clause, requiring council to publish all transactions on corporate credit cards and the names of officers to whom they are allocated. His third amendment is to 21A, The form and content of the primary and ordinary returns. Our understanding is that the council chief executive officer and certain employees designated by council must fill in primary and ordinary returns.

This amendment would require the submitter to advise the mayor, for the CEO, or the CEO for other employees, if anything in the return changes. This must be done within one month of the change occurring. This is in the same terms as the proposed amendment for council members. This is not necessarily big in itself, but it imposes a possible $10,000 fine for non-compliance and our advice at this stage is that there has not been any actual consultation on that particular provision.

The final amendment proposed by the Hon. John Darley is the inspection of the register. This requires the same information to be published on the website as the controversial amendment for council members, but applying to the employees register. This information has never been publicly available and is only available to council members. To provide that publications be made public, let alone on the web, is a substantial change.

As mentioned, I am seeking advice from the shadow minister on these amendments. I indicate that we are not necessarily opposed to the amendments but we certainly are yet to consult with the Local Government Association. Until we are able to at least speak to the Local Government Association and also to see what the government's response is, we are not opposed to the Hon. John Darley's amendments. We would need to take them back to the Liberal Party party room and have a further discussion. With those few words, I indicate we are supporting the bill and we are leaving ourselves open minded about the Hon. John Darley's amendments.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (16:33): I rise to support this bill and make some remarks about particular elements within it. Having been a councillor for 18 years at the City of Port Adelaide Enfield council, I am well aware of the many issues that face local government in this state. I think I am well placed to provide some considered commentary on these issues for the interest of this chamber. From the outset, it is everyone's understanding that a broader view of this act will be undertaken by the minister at some stage next year. I, as I am sure will be the case with other honourable members of this council, will use that as an opportunity to progress some of the necessary reforms needed in local government in this state.

It seems as though this bill has been brought up to address some of the more immediate concerns which need to be addressed in the act. I would like to speak about some of these briefly in my contribution today. The attempt in this bill to separate a councillor's material conflict of interest from other conflicts of interest in order to establish harsher penalties for material conflicts is certainly welcome.

Other conflicts of interest are now defined as being 'actual and perceived conflicts of interest'. This will provide the opportunity for a councillor to report a perceived conflict of interest without having to withdraw from the chamber. It is good to see the requirements on councillors to maintain their register of interests through their ordinary returns as has been enhanced in this bill. This bill now ensures that if there are changes to a councillor's interests, those changes must be made to their register within a 30-day period.

The bill also clarifies exactly what types of information must be maintained in a councillor's register of interests such as income sources, political trade union affiliations, hospitality benefits and gifts. In truth, this information has always been available through a councillor's primary and ordinary returns. The real change is that this information will now be made available online. This is a good development. It is a commonsense move that the minister is demonstrating can be made without the need for a full-scale review of the act.

I see no reason why the minister cannot apply these very same changes to chief executive officers and all other senior executive level staff in local government. I have spoken to a number of senior executive level staff who would welcome further transparency in their dealings because it would show the public that they have nothing to hide. Currently a CEO's or senior executive's (as determined by the CEO) register of interests can only be obtained by request of a councillor.

This does not sit comfortably with me given the nature of the close working relationships that exist between councillors and their administrations. I was made to feel very uncomfortable once when I queried about this particular matter in my previous role as a councillor—so much so that I didn't make further inquiries because I did not want to rock the boat.

The media and general members of the public should not be locked out of this process. It is possible that any FOI request made to obtain information on a senior executive staff's register of interests could legally be rejected by the CEO and the council administration itself. Ultimately it is senior executive level staff who direct council policy. They are full-time professional staff whose recommendations to its part-time community-minded elected body almost always get approved.

It is not hard for people to figure out that, while councillors make the decisions, all the groundwork leading up to council decisions is done in the background by an unelected body, namely council administration directed by the CEOs and other senior executive level staff.

In our parliamentary system, we have a strange but very crucial element which is uncommon in non-Westminster parliaments: there is an overlapping in our separation of powers. Members of the executive, our state's ministers, also happen to sit in the legislature, which is the parliament. This means that federal and state ministers become public figures who are subject to all the checks and balances that come with being a member of parliament.

Most people would not even be able to name their local council's CEO, yet these are the people who wield an enormous amount of power, with a significant amount of autonomy to run their organisation. This is far from a bad thing, as long as it comes with an appropriate level of transparency.

Surely, it is important that the media and members of the public are able to access an executive officer's register of interests online, just as they will be able to with respect to their local councillors, as proposed in this bill. This is particularly the case when it comes to the provision of gifts and hospitality from private sources. The fact that senior executive officers are unelected is irrelevant considering the amount of power they hold in influencing the decision-making process of a council. I would be very interested to know what the Local Government Association would be advocating with respect to this matter, as outlined by the Hon. David Ridgway.

Finally, there has been a bit of commentary on whether or not the minister was considering the inclusion of a provision which would have exempted councils from having to provide the 75 per cent rebate to the community housing sector. This would have been in response to the transfer of 5,000 homes from Housing SA to the community sector.

I am pleased that the minister has demonstrated his care for some of the poorest people in our community by not bowing to the pressure from the Local Government Association to include any exemption. It shows that, even though the minister is an Independent member of parliament, he really is a Labor member of parliament at heart. Perhaps that is why he was happy to support this government when he had the opportunity early in the term. He knew in his heart that—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: Who are you talking about?

The Hon. T.T. NGO: Minister Geoff Brock.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: Why would you waste your breath?

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order! The honourable member has the floor.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: He knew in his heart that he could not support a Liberal government. The transfer of 5,000 homes to the community sector is an important reform of this government, and it is highly likely that any rebate exemption provided to local government would have forced the community sector to increase rent or to invest less in their stock. This blanket approach would have hit tenants in existing community housing. We do not want to see any changes made that will affect the investment decisions of the community sector when they are contributing to the amenity of local areas.

If local government is requesting that the state government covers the shortfall, the Attorney-General has already indicated that he would be happy to undertake negotiations on a case-by-case basis rather than providing blanket legislation. This sounds entirely appropriate to me. I congratulate the minister for his strong stand on the traditional Labor policy of protecting the most vulnerable people. With that in mind, I commend this bill to the house.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (16:44): The Greens are supporting the second reading of the bill, and I note that we have had correspondence from constituent groups including the Local Government Association and also the Southern and Hills Local Government Association. In relation to the latter group, they are quite happy with the amendments being made in this bill, so they are easily satisfied.

As we have heard, the Local Government Association does have some concerns; they are not happy and, in fact, in their words were 'adamantly opposed' to the proposal to require council members to publish particular personal details on a website. The information that they are unhappy about being published is the detail included in clause 13 of the bill, which includes the members' income sources and the names of any political parties, any body or association formed for political purposes, or any trade or professional organisation of which the member is a member, and any gifts received by the member that are subject to disclosure.

The Local Government Association argument, as I understand it, is that they are not opposing the disclosure of that information, but they are not happy with it going onto a website. I must admit to struggling a little bit with the rationale behind that. It seems to me that those of us who are parents basically educate our children that in the modern day, everything that you do, say or think is going to end up on the web; it is going to last there forever, and it is just the way things now are. Given the fact that information on elected members is available by asking for it by getting a piece of paper from the council, it is not that much removed to say, 'Well, it's actually more efficient for it to be searchable by it being online.'

The Local Government Association points out that information can date quickly online. Well, it can, as photos of ourselves date quickly online. I do not think the fact that a snapshot of aspects of a person's life exists at a point in time is a reason not to put stuff online; it will be out of date, potentially, by the very next day, but we all understand that. That is the nature of online archives.

It seems to me that the thrust of what is being achieved here is in relation to accountability, and the question that is being addressed by this provision is whether a member of a council might be answerable to anyone other than their constituents. In other words, are they answerable to a political party? Are they answerable to an employer? Are they answerable to someone else? That is what is sought to be achieved by disclosure. That then raises the question that with the particular affiliations that have been identified in this bill, why is it that this short list has been chosen for online disclosure, whereas other aspects of a person's life are not?

I understand that political party affiliation is definitely a relevant consideration. People would want to know whether their local ward councillor is a member of the Liberal Party or the Labor Party, but they might also be interested to know whether that person was a member of The Flat Earth Society or whether they were a member of some strange religious cult that denied the fossil record and believed the earth was only a few thousand years old. I have got to say that for me, knowing that about a person would be, in fact, a lot more telling in terms of whether they deserve my support or not than whether they are a member of a political party.

Similarly, with trade and professional associations, whether someone is a member of the Royal Society of Engineers or not seems to be neither here nor there. But I understand that there is a grey area, especially in relation to bodies or associations formed for political purposes. My personal approach has been to err on the side of caution, and I have disclosed on my register of interests everything that I belong to—every social, sporting, cultural, political and neighbourhood organisation. I think I am up to about 60. The list includes the 'Friends of' different parks around the place that I am a member of. There is only one that I have not disclosed, and that is simply so I do not bring myself into disrepute, but it does not fit within the category, so I am not going to even tell you what that is. It may or may not involve folk music, but we will leave that to one side.

The next aspect is that it is one thing to disclose information about people once they are elected to office, but I think of far more interest is finding out about them before they are elected to office. I understand that the Local Government Association says that it supports making this information available about all candidates for office, not just sitting members of councils. I also understand that that is a matter that the government is investigating. I think there is some consultation process out there at the moment but I will just put on the record now that whilst we support this disclosure in this bill, we are eagerly anticipating the electoral disclosure laws because I think that is far more relevant—for people to find out about their candidates before they vote for them rather than to find out afterwards.

With those few brief words, the Greens will certainly be supporting the second reading of the bill. We have not had a chance to look at amendments and if there are arguments that I have missed in relation to the Local Government Association's adamant opposition to the aspect of the bill then I look forward to hearing those arguments, but they have not fallen on fertile ground at present.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.