Hansard Daily: Legislative Council - Tuesday, March 30 2021

Statutes Amendment (Local Government Review) Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 18 March 2021.)

Clause 27.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Hon. Ms Bourke has indicated that she has moved amendment No. 13, so I suspect we must have reported progress before I indicated the government's position on amendments Nos 13 and 14. They are linked. On amendment No. 13, I appreciate that there would be a general view that council members should not have the costs of their overseas travel met by the council without the council's explicit approval, but the government would argue that the act already safeguards this through the bounds it sets on council delegations and member allowances.

The government notes an issue that arose in 2018—presumably the basis of this amendment—where a mayor travelled overseas without the approval of the elected member body. This was investigated by the Ombudsman, who found that the mayor had committed maladministration under the current act. As I said, amendment No. 14 is consequential to this amendment and we also oppose that.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: When we last debated this bill, I mentioned to the committee that, from a Greens' perspective, every player would win a prize in this debate, but this is not one that the Labor Party is going to win from the Greens. We accept the position that the Treasurer has put forward, that the checks and balances included in the honourable member's amendment are in fact already covered by other requirements in the Local Government Act. Whilst we support the sentiment that members of council should not be going overseas without their council's endorsement, we do not think it is necessary to restate it again in this amendment, so we will not be supporting it.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will not be supporting these two amendments.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: SA-Best will be supporting the amendment.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.E. Hanson): I am reliably informed that we have only had amendment No. 13 put, not amendment No. 14, because at this stage they are not linked.

Amendment negatived.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.E. Hanson): The Hon. Ms Bourke, I am going to seek clarification from you as to whether you are going to move amendment No. 14.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Amendment No. 14 is consequential, so we will not be moving it.

Clause passed.

Clauses 28 to 43 passed.

New clause 43A.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I move:

Amendment No 15 [Bourke–1]—

Page 31, after line 24—Insert:

43A—Insertion of sections 79A to 79C

After section 79 insert:

79A—Publication of credit card expenditure

(1) A council must, within 14 days after the end of each quarter, publish in a prominent location on its website the following details in relation to each credit card provided by the council for use by a member of the council:

(a) the name of each member entitled to use the credit card;

(b) a statement of any expenses of an amount of greater than $100 for the quarter incurred using the credit card.

(2) Any details published under subsection (1) must remain available on the website for inspection by members of the public for a period of 10 years from the date of publication.

(3) A council must ensure that a link to the website address at which the details published under subsection (1) are available for inspection is prominently published on an Internet platform (such as social media).

79B—Publication of travel by members

(1) A council must, within 14 days after the end of each quarter, publish in a prominent location on its website information as to the particulars (including the cost) of any travel beyond the limits of South Australia undertaken by a member of the council during the quarter that was, or will be, funded in whole or in part by the council.

(2) Any details published under subsection (1) must remain available on the website for inspection by members of the public until 5 years has elapsed since the conclusion of the member's term of office (or, in the case of a member who serves 2 (or more) consecutive terms of office, since the conclusion of the member's final such term of office).

(4) In this section—

cost of travel—

(a) includes accommodation costs and other costs and expenses associated with the travel; but

(b) does not include land based travel costs;

land based travel costs means costs attributable to transportation by road, rail or other means of transport on land.

79C—Publication of certain gifts funded by council

(1) A council must, within 14 days after the end of each quarter, publish in a prominent location on its website information as to the particulars (including the cost) of any gift provided to a member of the council during the quarter that was, or will be, funded in whole or in part by the council.

This amendment has been altered since it was originally filed. It has now been refined to reflect the feedback from the Local Government Association and members of our crossbench. I revised all filed amendments standing in my name to reflect this feedback by reducing the level of reporting within these amendments.

Amendment No. 15 standing in my name simply requires councils to publish quarterly and show on their website details of the following: the expenditure of council credit cards used by councillors; councillors' interstate travel, fully or partly financed by councils; and gifts to councillors, fully or partly financed by councils. Taxpayers and ratepayers have a right to know how their money is being spent, especially when it comes to credit cards, travel and gifts.

The government may have introduced this amendment bill originally with the pretext of lowering costs through rate capping, but the community has not been calling for councils to have fewer services at lower quality through rate capping. The community was interested in having a spotlight shone on how ratepayers' money was spent. This amendment reflects the community standards and community expectations that when elected officials use public money, especially when it comes to credit cards, that those expenses are available to the public.

Through investigations like that of the SA Auditor-General, Andrew Richardson, dozens of examples have been uncovered where councils did not demonstrate proper use of public money. We all know examples of this, so sensationalised and ridiculous they perhaps overshadow the good work of many dedicated local members. Stories in the media have also included ratepayers' money being used to buy Apple Watches, golf memberships, rounds of single malt whiskey and financing overseas rendezvous.

I could consume the parliament's time reading countless stories of the misuse of money through council credit cards, but instead I remind you of just a few headlines that paint this ugly picture: 'Council credit card crunch', 'We pay, you play', 'Money to burn', 'Manager bills ratepayers for late-night booze fest' and 'Splashing public cash is just part of the job'. In feedback on these Labor amendments, the LGA stated that some councils have voluntarily adopted processes of publishing credit card information. This is good news and it will enable others to follow the standards that they have set, but it needs to be a standard that is followed by all councils.

The LGA has also raised concerns about the frequency of reporting and the short time frame set out in the original Labor amendments, claiming these are unreasonable and impractical. These amendments, now in my name, address this concern by increasing the time of reporting requirements from 14 days to quarterly. Labor took this step because the intent of this amendment is too important to be overlooked by reporting requirements.

This approach purely kicks the can down the road and is irresponsible, and if we do not address this problem now we will be looking back and wishing that we had addressed it now instead of doing it through the FOI bill. If the parliament designs better proactive disclosure processes through later FOI legislation, the provisions we adapt today can be amended by the FOI bill in parliament at a later date.

Amendment No. 15, as it now stands, also takes into account concerns from the crossbenchers that there may have been mistakes where individuals accidentally used a council credit card to buy a chocolate bar. I believe our community standards expect any person with access to publicly funded credit cards should be held accountable. However, in the interests of pursuing meaningful reforms, this amendment only requires disclosures of amounts over $100, ensuring significant expenses are still captured. This is about shining a light on how money is used and where money is used, and putting it on the public record.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that the government's position is to oppose the amendment. The government notes, however, that it supports active disclosure of information that is of public interest. As the member has alluded to, we have a bill before the parliament proposing significant improvements to the Freedom of Information Act, focusing on proactive disclosure. However, the government believes there is always a balance between proper and full disclosure and administrative burdens, which are ultimately funded by the taxpayers, or in this instance ratepayers.

In the government's view, the balance is not quite right in these particular amendments and place onerous requirements on councils. The government's view is that proper disclosure of credit cards and reimbursement amounts, travel expenses and other public interest information is best captured through existing reporting mechanisms, most notably councils' annual reports.

This can be achieved through regulation, which also has the benefit of allowing updates and improvements to information disclosure over time, rather than legislating commitments to particular technologies in the act. I also note that the latest draft of the amendments has the disclosure of credit card expenditure where it is more than $100, and if that is to be changed it will require legislative amendment.

It is the government's view that it supports proper disclosure. I think, as the honourable member has indicated, these are now quarterly reports. The government is referring to the capacity for annual reporting, so we are just talking about four reports, as I understand it from the Hon. Ms Bourke's explanation of her amendments, and the government believes it could be done through regulation and annual reports.

As to the issue of specifically referring in amendments to levels, which at the moment may well make sense, which is $100, it may well be that in the not-too-distant future some different sum might be required which will therefore require legislative amendment of that particular sum. We have had many examples in the past where outdated references to expenditure levels have had to be updated many years after their use-by date, if I can put it that way.

I suspect the numbers might not be with us on this particular issue but we wait with interest. The government's position is, on balance, to oppose this amendment.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Amendment No. 15 in the name of the Hon. Emily Bourke inserts three new sections. The debate so far has focused on the proposed new section 79A, which is publication of credit card expenditure, but there are other amendments which have not been addressed but I think they fall into a similar category. The other amendments relate to publication of travel by members of councils and also publication of certain gifts funded by councils.

Let me say at the outset, the Greens wholeheartedly support increased disclosure and accountability by local councils. Like the state government, like the federal government, it is not their money, it is our money, and there should be appropriate disclosure. However, the Greens have looked at this very carefully and we note also submissions that we have received from the Local Government Association and, in particular, a briefing paper that they issued this month, entitled 'Mandatory reporting of information in local government'. They specifically address these amendments and amendments that go to adding to the requirement of local councils.

There are a couple of things they say which I think make sense. The first one is they say that all of the disclosure requirements would ideally be located in one place, rather than spread throughout the act, and they refer to schedule 5 of the act. The second thing they note is that the LGA has developed and refined what they call their BPM, which is the Better Practice Model—Internal Financial Controls document. That is a document that councils are increasingly adopting. According to the LGA:

Adoption of the BPM by councils had led to significantly improved financial control and reporting. It has also led to far-greater consistency between South Australia's 68 councils.

The State Government proposes to adopt the BPM, by means of a Regulation made pursuant to section 125(2) of the LG Act. This process will formalise what is largely existing practice.

I think that reflects what the Treasurer just said in relation to using regulations to achieve the level of disclosure that the Hon. Emily Bourke is seeking through her amendment. The conclusion that the Local Government Association come to in relation to this is, firstly, they do not support the amendments. They are supporting the bill as it was drafted and they say that their first preference, as an organisation, is that any new reporting obligations:

…be incorporated into an amended version of the BPM, which would then become a s132(1) financial regulation. Changes to the BPM will be developed with the assistance and expertise of local government financial managers, which should limit the extra resources required to comply with any new obligation. The LGA requests that MLCs accept an undertaking on the Hansard record from the State Government in this regard.

I am not sure whether that undertaking on the Hansard record is one that has been given or whether the Treasurer is going to give it, but apparently the discussions, I am assuming, between the LGA and the government are that either an undertaking has been given or will be given that issues of the type raised by the Hon. Emily Bourke in her amendment will be addressed in this other way.

The only other thing I would say, because I want to focus on the spirit of the amendment rather than the technicality of it, is that as legislators we have to get the technical side right. There are issues, as the Treasurer has said, in relation to including limits like $100. There is also, I think, possibly limitations in using words like 'credit card', which might not include a debit card, might not include Afterpay, might not include flashing your phone at some device that takes money out of your bank. There is a whole range of issues which make the life of a legislative drafter very difficult—similarly, publishing things in prominent locations on websites.

We know exactly what is intended by that. The honourable member's amendment means not hidden away in so many subfolders that no normal person could ever find it. That is what it is aimed at. It is a tricky legislative thing to do, to say it must be in a prominent location. Does it mean the front page? Does it mean the second page? Does it have to be something you can see without scrolling? I am really not sure how that works. I am not saying that to be difficult because I am one of those people who has advocated strongly for more information to be put online, and if it is going to be put online it should not be hidden.

I am also on the record as saying that we are over the days of newspaper advertisements at the back, with the used car ads and the massage parlours, in six point font that no-one ever looks at. They are not designed to genuinely inform the public. Similarly, people can hide things on websites. So I absolutely get where the honourable member is coming from, wanting things in a prominent location. I just think legislatively it is tricky.

The bottom line for us is, having had a number of conversations with the Local Government Association, I think they have had a wake-up call, especially after some of those incidents in previous years—Onkaparinga comes to mind, the golf club membership and various other expenditures. I think the LGA is onto it. I think the government understands too that there needs to be a level of certainty and a level of consistency about how local government goes about reporting how it is spending ratepayers' money.

At this stage, we are comfortable with the arrangements that have been put in place in relation to the Local Government Association's document I referred to, the BPM, the Better Practice Model—Internal Financial Controls document, and the undertaking that has or will be given that, through regulatory means, the sort of accountability sought through these amendments can be achieved in another way.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As the Hon. Mr Parnell and I are both near our political demise, I am more and more encouraged by his willingness to consider sensible amendments to the legislation. I am happy, I am advised on behalf of the government, to indicate along the lines that he has requested, and that is the government is prepared to place on the public record its willingness to look at an appropriate regulation which would see the publication of credit card expenditure, travel by members and gifts funded by councils at least annually, I am told. I think in the first instance we are talking about annually. There would need to be consultation about the appropriate drafting of those regs.

On behalf of the government, I am advised I can give that assurance, if that gives the honourable member and indeed any other members some comfort that there is a commitment to greater transparency in terms of credit card expenditure, travel and receipt of gifts, as outlined in the substance of the Hon. Ms Bourke's amendments.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: On the back of that assurance, the Greens will not be supporting the amendments.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: In view of the assurances given by the minister, I will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Initially, we were inclined to support Labor's amendment. I thank the Hon. Emily Bourke for amending it to give it an appropriate time line. But I am heartened by what we have just heard from the Treasurer. Initially, I would have preferred that we did enshrine in legislation that there was this strident governance over credit card expenses, but given the assurance we have just received from the Treasurer we will oppose the amendment now.

New clause negatived.

Clauses 44 to 51 passed.

Clause 52.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I move:

Amendment No 16 [Bourke–1]—

Page 36, after line 17—Insert:

(1a) Section 90(7)—after paragraph (c) insert:

and

(d) the name of each member who voted on the resolution in relation to the making of the order and whether the member voted in favour of or against that resolution.

(1b) Section 90—after subsection (7) insert:

(7aa) If a resolution is passed at a meeting while an order is in force under subsection (2), a note must be made in the minutes specifying—

(a) the fact that the resolution was passed; and

(b) the name of each member who voted on the resolution and whether the member voted in favour of or against that resolution.

This amendment addresses an issue that occasionally arises in council meetings when councillors decide to discuss matters in camera. The amendment will require that, if councillors vote to move to an in camera session, the name of each member who voted on the resolution to move to an in camera session be recorded and whether they voted for or against the resolution.

Whilst we understand that in camera sessions are important to protect the identity or even at times the safety of the community, we are seeking some accountability in how this process is carried out, should at a later date a scandal or conflict of interest emerge. For example, instead of placing on the public record that a councillor has a conflict of interest, I understand that at times counsellors in the past have decided to reveal this information of a conflict of interest in camera.

Whilst we acknowledge the right to move in camera during these sessions, should later issues arise surrounding such a conflict of interest, it should be a matter of public record as to which councillors supported the need to move to an in camera session at that time. I note that the government's response to the Productivity Commission was structured around four key themes, one of those themes being governance, accountability and transparency. Members in this chamber should support this amendment based very much on those grounds.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes this amendment. The act provides for a narrow range of prescribed matters, such as legal advice, commercial-in-confidence, security matters and so on, that can be considered and decided on by a council in confidence. By definition, details of matters considered by councils in confidence are not recorded in the minutes. It therefore makes little sense for minutes to indicate which members voted for or against an order to enter into confidence, or for or against matters considered in confidence. Firstly, minutes only record how members voted when a division is called. It makes no sense to require a division only for motions where the matter is or has been considered in confidence.

The honourable member's amendment would not enable ratepayers to determine that councils are properly discussing matters in confidence, or that members are managing their conflicts of interest properly as the ratepayers would not be able to see any details on the matter or the motion. This amendment does not solve a problem; instead, it possibly creates one. It may lead to an expectation that council members must justify why they voted one way or another, which they may feel they can only do by referring to the matter that was discussed in confidence. This is, in itself, a breach of integrity requirements.

Of course, if any person—including other members or council employees—is of the view that a council or a member has acted improperly, they may lodge a complaint with the Ombudsman or the Office of Public Integrity. The government also notes that, once a matter is no longer subject to a confidentiality order, the minutes and associated meeting papers must be released, though this time both the details of the matter and the council's decision will be known.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I think there is a pretty simple assumption that we can make in relation to this—that unless the names of members are recorded in the minutes, it was unanimous to go into confidence. The reason I say that is that already under the Local Government Act any member can call for a division in relation to anything they are not happy with in terms of a vote.

So the assumption is that if a member, or more than one member, thinks that the council should not go into a confidential session, they will call for a division and their name will be recorded. In the absence of that, I think it is a fairly reasonable assumption that everyone was happy enough to go into a confidential meeting. That is the first problem, I think, with this amendment.

The second is, and I think the Treasurer has pointed this out, the Local Government Association as well said to us that it is not clear what outcome is achieved if a council must disclose how elected members voted on confidential motions when the motion itself remains confidential. So there is not a whole lot to be gained by this amendment. If it really is contentious whether something should be heard behind closed doors, we will know, because presumably one or more members called for a division and voted against it, so it will be on the record. We do not need this amendment. The Greens will not be supporting it.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I support what the LGA is saying, that it just seems to be trying to achieve something that is already there and it does not need to be duplicated. I want to say that there is far too much secrecy in local government these days. Many councils use an opportunity to discuss issues behind closed doors and in that regard deny ratepayers an effective way of learning what councillors are thinking or are voting in that process. I am for transparency and for that reason I will be supporting Labor.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: For the record, I will not be supporting this amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 53 to 58 passed.

Clause 59.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.E. Hanson): We are at amendment No. 18. I call the Hon. Ms Bourke.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: This amendment has failed due to previous amendments not being successful.

Clause passed.

Clause 60 passed.

Clause 61.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I move:

Amendment No 19 [Bourke–1]—

Page 39, line 24 [clause 61, inserted section 99A(1)]—After 'section' insert:

and section 99B

This amendment, along with consequential amendment No. 20, introduces new rules about the composition of remuneration of the CEO of a council and requires the publication of the employment contract signed by the CEO.

Recently, CEOs have been caught out with special perks hidden in their employment contracts that would not be in line with ratepayers' expectations. This could include things that we have mentioned already in the chamber, golf memberships, clothing allowances, expensive superannuation benefits, Apple Watches and other unreasonable expenses, especially when considering they are paid for by ratepayers.

This amendment restricts these benefits to a number of categories, including salaries and superannuation contributions, vehicles and vehicle expenses, ICT equipment and places of residence for CEOs living outside metropolitan Adelaide. The requirement to publish an employment contract will fulfil the government's key theme in its response to the Productivity Commission's report by providing governance, accountability and transparency.

This amendment increases transparency across the board. With these amendments, ratepayers will be able to compare the contracts of CEOs across various councils and determine whether they are getting value for money from their CEO. After feedback from stakeholders regarding concerns about the publication of private information, we have included an ability for councils to redact information so as to prevent the disclosure of information of where a CEO resides. We are not interested in sharing CEOs' personal details, we are simply wanting to have transparency and accountability. I call on the chamber to support this motion.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that the government is opposing these amendments. My advice is that the bill includes a very significant change in relation to CEO packages and that is that, as I understand it, I think with the support of the LGA, CEO remuneration package bands will be set by an independent body for the first time, and that is the Remuneration Tribunal, with the council being able to determine the remuneration of their CEOs within those minimum/maximum bands.

I am advised that this system broadly exists in one other jurisdiction, which is Western Australia, and it is proposed that that be the system utilised here. On the surface, that would not provide the degree of specificity perhaps that this amendment is seeking; that is, knowing exactly where within the band a CEO of a particular council is placed, but it would at least place some upper—which I guess is the most interesting bit, rather than the lower—limit on what the CEO is to be paid. That is, a council would not be able to go way beyond the bounds of what might be seen by ratepayers as being reasonable for a council of its size.

I would hope that we all accept that there are some councils, given their complexity, the size of their budget, the number of employees they have and also the ratepayer base, I guess, where the CEO may well be entitled to a higher remuneration than a council that is much smaller, with a much lower ratepayer revenue base and that is much less complex, and therefore that is the reason why there will be these bands. Nevertheless, there is some flexibility within the bands in terms of what the council may well want to offer their CEO.

I am further advised that the remuneration band will be a total package, so would include a monetary calculation of all entitlements they might be offered, not just salary but may well be, I assume, superannuation and the monetary equivalent of a car package or, heaven forbid—I am not sure that we still allow golf packages.

Whatever it is in the remuneration package that is offered would be monetised, so that there would be some sort of total contract value—a TPV or the like—such as the mechanisms the Remuneration Tribunal uses for a variety of other statutory office holders but that is also used in the public sector in relation to the total entitlements that either a chief executive or a senior executive may well be paid.

For those reasons, the government, while supporting the sentiment that is encapsulated in the honourable member's question, is opposing these particular amendments because we believe there is another way of achieving, broadly, the same policy goal that the member wants through the process that I have just outlined.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Greens' approach is very similar, I think, to the government's, in that we absolutely support increased transparency and accountability in relation to the setting of total remuneration for chief executives of local councils. The model proposed in the bill does give the job to the Remuneration Tribunal to set various bands and, as the Treasurer has said, it will take into account that some councils are big, some are small, some are city, some are country.

The Hon. Emily Bourke's amendment seeks to be more prescriptive. If I just take one example, I think country councils are well aware that they often have to provide a house for a CE to get them to take on the job, but under the amendment proposed the council effectively has to buy a house. It might be an issue of drafting, but according to the amendment the house has to be owned by the council on the day of appointment or reappointment, as the case may be, of the chief executive officer.

That might not be an appropriate tenure, the fact that the council has to buy a house for someone who might have a three-year contract, and then the next person who gets the job might be a local who already has a house and they do not need the extra house that they have bought. I just point that out as a possible overreach in terms of wanting to be prescriptive in terms of setting out the list of things that can and cannot form part of a remuneration package but in the process some unintended consequences might flow from that.

I think the Hon. Emily Bourke's intention is achieved by the government's model in the bill and in particular the role of the Remuneration Tribunal. The tribunal must have reference to regulations, so that if further prescription is required, in other words if the council starts looking at performance bonuses based on dodgy criteria, the government can actually put a stop to that through regulation. We are happy to let this new model have a chance to succeed, so the Greens will be supporting the bill as drafted and we will not be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will not be supporting the Labor amendment, although I see the intent. I think we categorised this as the 'golf club amendment'. However, the LGA is correct in its assertion that the Remuneration Tribunal is already there and set up to establish or set the CEO salary bands, and I think it would be then in appropriate hands. We will not be supporting it.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 62 passed.

Clause 63.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I move:

Amendment No 21 [Bourke–1]—

Page 41, after line 2—Insert:

(1) Section 105(1)(a)—delete 'each position held by an employee' and substitute:

the 5 highest remunerated positions held by employees of the council and any other positions held by employees who report directly to the chief executive officer

(2) Section 105(1)(b)—delete 'those positions' and substitute:

the positions referred to in paragraph (a)

(3) Section 105(1)(b) and (c)—delete 'or industrial agreement' wherever occurring and substitute in each case:

, industrial agreement or common law instrument

(4) Section 105(1)(c)—delete 'each position' and substitute:

the positions referred to in paragraph (a)

The reason for moving this amendment I think has been very well explained by Colin James in The Advertiser on 6 September 2019. I quote:

Wages for most of these [council] staff—ranging from librarians to gardeners—are set by [EBAs] negotiated between the councils and unions, with most earning between $65,000 and $90,000.

These are the people who physically deliver council services paid for by your rates, such as the maintenance of parks, cleaning public toilets, sweeping streets and catching stray dogs. Ratepayers should not be too concerned about how much they are paid. They seem to be largely decent people working hard to serve their communities.

If there is one area on which the spotlight should shine, it is the high salaries paid to the hundreds of highly mobile chief executives and senior managers employed by councils, both urban and regional.

We have seen from other examples that we have shared with you throughout this debate, ranging from the misuse of credit cards to golf memberships, why it is important to increase transparency for the pay rates of our highest paid council staff. This amendment removes the onerous requirements to publish salary packages of your local council cleaner and instead retargets this section to focus on our highest salary earners within our council areas.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government is opposing the amendment. The government's bill simply proposes to make a document—the register of salaries—available online, as it is already created by councils and already publicly available. Any person can go into a council office now and request to see the whole register and take copies of extracts from it. Of course, no personal details are included in this register although the government recognises that in smaller councils this may not prevent ratepayers putting two and two together on which salary is paid to whom.

Whilst the government appreciates that not all council staff may wish this information to be known, it is only reasonable that ratepayers can readily see how much council staff are being paid. This is part and parcel of working for a public body and having a salary paid for by ratepayers or by taxpayers. I am advised that this register is already available. Some place it online; not everyone does. The government's bill will require all councils to place their register of salaries online. The government notes that the LGA's guidelines covering the register of salary state:

The starting point for the guidelines is the fact that salaries and benefits for employees (and council members) are paid for by ratepayers. Communities therefore have a legitimate interest in knowing how their rates are being spent.

The guidelines also note that, while not required by law, publishing the register of salaries on the council's website would enhance transparency. Many councils, therefore, already publish their register online.

The government notes that some changes have been made to the amendment that was first filed on the matter to ensure that the salaries and benefits received by all employees who report directly to the CEO are placed online. However, this does not deal with the fact that the top five salaries at a small regional council will include positions that are not anywhere near this level at a larger council. So for the reasons the government has outlined, we are opposing the amendment and supporting the framework that has been outlined in the government's bill.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: In my discussions on this amendment with the Local Government Association, they actually pointed out that this amendment would make the disclosure of salaries less transparent, not more, in that only the top five would need to be published, as opposed to, as the Treasurer has pointed out, a current regime where all the salaries would be published.

I do take the Hon. Emily Bourke's point that we have a lot of people working hard for local councils at less than the average wage. If the whole spectrum of salaries was published, then people could work out for themselves whether a CEO or a chief finance officer was worth four or five times what the dog catcher was being paid. I think transparency is improved by having all the salary bands disclosed publicly, rather than just limiting it to the top five.

I do take the Treasurer's point that in a very small council the dog catcher might make the top five if there are not that many employees, but in bigger councils I think the comparison between the most highly paid and the least well paid would be a sobering exercise, and I would like to see all that information published.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I want to clarify that, yes, you are right, there is already a register that is available, but consider why this amendment may have been put forward. Consider what it may mean for a small regional council. When you are the local dog catcher or you are working on the front desk, what does that mean for you? No personal information is provided, but it is pretty easy to figure out, in a small country town, who is the receptionist working at the front desk and what they are getting paid.

Is that really the intent of this bill? Is that really what we want to be focusing on, and is that really what we want to be shining a spotlight on through this bill? Is it not that we want to be highlighting how money is potentially being misused or not used appropriately? It is there to highlight what those big employees are getting paid. We are not here to focus on people who are earning $65,000; why do we need to share that with the community?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: SA-Best will be supporting the Labor amendment, and I support the words of the Hon. Emily Bourke. It would be interesting, would it not, to see what the dog catcher gets and whether the dog catcher actually gets more than the parking inspector, and if he gets danger money, perhaps, but we are of the view that the intent of this amendment is actually to focus on the high-paying jobs within council and not to focus on the other workers in council areas, so we are inclined to support it.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: For the record, I will not be supporting this amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

New clause 63A.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I move:

Amendment No 22 [Bourke–1]—

Page 41, after line 3—Insert:

63A—Insertion of sections 105A and 105B

After section 105 insert:

105A—Publication of credit card expenditure

(a) the title of the position of each employee entitled to use the credit card;

(b) a statement of any expenses of an amount of greater than $100 for the quarter incurred using the credit card.

(2) Any details published under subsection (1) must remain available on the website for inspection by members of the public for a period of 10 years from the date of publication.

105B—Publication of certain gifts funded by council

(1) A council must, within 14 days after the end of each quarter, publish in a prominent location on its website the following details in relation to each gift provided to an employee of the council during the quarter that was, or will be, funded in whole or in part by the council—

(a) the title of the position of the employee to whom the gift was given;

(b) a description (including the cost) of the gift.

(2) Any details published under subsection (1) must remain available on the website for inspection by members of the public until 5 years has elapsed since the employee ceased employment with the council.

This reflects quite a number of the discussions we have had already. I know that I have not had the support of the chamber, but I will quickly run through this so that we can have a discussion. Employers are also using ratepayers' money through their credit card expenditures. This amendment requires the disclosure of who is entitled to use a credit card and requires a statement of any expenses of an amount greater than $100 for the quarter incurred using that credit card and that these statements be published on the website of a council.

We have amended this reporting requirement so that it is not onerous on the council, as we have previously done, and it would be required to be published on a quarterly basis. This amendment falls in line with previous amendments that aimed to increase openness, transparency and accountability in our councils, which is the focus of the government's response to the Productivity Commission's report.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government's position is to oppose this amendment, for similar reasons as before. I want to again place on the record, in the interests of encouraging the Hon. Mr Parnell and others to support the government's position, that the commitment I gave earlier on behalf of the government in relation to a regulation that would see transparency for credit card expenditure, travel and gifts to elected members also applies to employees.

The government's view is the same, and that is that I am authorised to give a commitment on behalf of the government that a regulation that I earlier gave in relation to elected members' expenditure in those areas will also extend to employees. I think the experiences in relation to the Burnside council and perhaps one or two others throws light on why that would be useful.

I am advised that it is useful to note that in relation to the current drafting of the honourable member's amendment, that many of the expenditure items evidently included the Ombudsman's report on the Burnside council would not be covered by this particular amendment moved by the Hon. Ms Bourke because most of the expenditure items, I am advised, were under $100 and what it would encourage potentially for clever employees is credit card splitting, sharing of costs so that everyone's share of the expenditure is under $100.

In consultation with the LGA, the government will need to be mindful of that in terms of the drafting of appropriate regulations for the annual reporting of expenditure. We agree, as we did earlier, with the honourable member's sentiment in relation to elected members. We have the same view in relation to employees, but we are going to oppose this amendment and we would urge the committee to oppose it similarly and accept the process that the government has outlined.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Greens' view is very similar to what we expressed before in relation to the earlier amendment. I want to put on the record in relation to the honourable member's proposed section 105B—Publication of certain gifts funded by council, I took a bit of a vox pop on this amendment on Facebook. Basically, my question was, 'Is it appropriate for work to pay for gifts for staff?' When you phrase it like that, people were saying, 'No, you do not buy gifts for your staff.'

When you add a bit more information—say it was an outdoor worker, someone who had lovingly tended the gardens of the local council in rain or shine for 45 years and they were retiring—some people thought, 'Well, that's a bit different. Work could probably pitch in a bit for a retirement gift.' Some were still hardline on Facebook and they were saying, 'No, pass the hat—that's how it works, if they are valued their colleagues will put money into the hat.'

Then you get this situation where maybe a new wheelbarrow, for example, might be the proposed gift for the outdoor worker. They pass the hat, they get $180, the wheelbarrow costs $200 and someone in the council says, 'I think we can put in that last 20 bucks and we can get the wheelbarrow for Fred who is retiring.' Under this amendment, there is no limit to disclosure; $20 topping up the cost of the wheelbarrow for the retiring staff and it has to be published and kept available for inspection for five years.

I understand that is not at all what the honourable member is aiming at. She is aiming at scurrilous, self-serving Swiss watches, as we saw in relation to one public utility, and is very keen to make sure that there is not that rip-off of taxpayers with council willy-nilly giving gifts to their own staff. But I think the councils are well aware of how this is playing so poorly in the community. The government has given commitments in relation to accountability and transparency and the Greens are happy to see the government put those in place, and we will hold them to account if they do not. So we do not need to support these amendments.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: In light of the assurances that we have received from the government today, we will not be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I certainly will not be supporting the amendment.

New clause negatived.

Clauses 64 to 68 passed.

Clause 69.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I move:

Amendment No 23 [Bourke–1]—

Page 41, after line 24—Insert:

(2a) Subject to subsection (2b), an employee of a council must not undertake overseas travel that is, or will be, funded in whole or in part by the council, unless the council has, prior to the commencement of the travel, passed a resolution approving the travel.

(2b) It is not a breach of subsection (2a) if an employee of a council undertakes overseas travel of a kind referred to in that subsection without prior approval in accordance with subsection (2a) if—

(a) as a result of exceptional circumstances, it was not reasonably practicable for the travel to be approved in accordance with subsection (2a); and

(b) the travel is approved by resolution of the council passed within 7 days of the conclusion of the travel.

(2c) If an employee of a council undertakes overseas travel that is, or will be, funded in whole or in part by the council, the employee must ensure that a report prepared by the employee setting out the actual cost of the travel and the outcomes achieved by the undertaking of the travel is submitted to the council for consideration at a meeting of the council occurring within 2 months of the conclusion of the travel.

(2d) If the period of 7 days referred to in subsection (2b) or 2 months referred to in subsection (2c) would, but for this subsection, expire in a particular case during an election period for a general election, that period will be extended by force of this subsection so as to expire 7 days or 2 months (as the case requires) from the conclusion of the election period.

I note that amendment No. 24 is consequential to this one. I also note that we have had a very clear indication from the chamber what the response will probably be for this amendment. But to put it on the record, we feel that if people are using ratepayers' money that it is made available why they are spending that money.

This is about being open and transparent about how ratepayers' money is being used, particularly if employees for some reason are travelling overseas. So we feel it is only reasonable that if an employee of a council is travelling overseas that they do have approval to do that and, if they do travel overseas, they can provide a report to the council about why they have travelled.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Just to repeat, we addressed this issue earlier in a similar debate and the government opposes it for the same reasons we gave earlier.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Greens' position is the same. We opposed an earlier version of this amendment, so we will not be supporting this one either.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: For the record, I will be opposing this amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I am going to support the amendment. I think it is very important that before a councillor undertakes any overseas travel that is funded by ratepayers that it needs to be put to the council so that they know where the money is going and how it is being spent.

Again, it comes down to the appropriateness of travel. We have seen instances over the years, not just with councillors but also with MPs, where they have travelled overseas ostensibly for conferences or to visit somewhere and then when they have returned you hardly see a detailed report. You really do not know what they got up to and you do not know whether ratepayers or taxpayers got value for money.

I think it is important that there is full disclosure and transparency when it comes to overseas travel, particularly by the third tier of government. I think we need to ensure that ratepayers do get value for money and that you do know where they are going and that the proposed travel is appropriately scrutinised. So we support Labor on that amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 70 to 73 passed.

New clause 73A.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I move:

Amendment No 25 [Bourke–1]—

Page 42, after line 17—Insert:

73A—Amendment of section 115—Form and content of returns

(1) Section 115(1)—delete 'A' and substitute:

Subject to subsection (1a), a

(2) Section 115—after subsection (1) insert:

(1a) A return must include information as to the particulars (including the cost) of any travel beyond the limits of South Australia undertaken by the person submitting the return during the return period that is, or is to be, funded in whole or in part by the council, and for the purposes of this subsection cost of travel—

(a) includes accommodation costs and other costs and expenses associated with the travel; but

(b) does not include land based travel costs (as defined in section 119AA(4)).

Again, this goes to the intent of all of our amendments, and that is to increase transparency and accountability for why ratepayers' money is being used. This new section inserted is simply there to ensure that, when councillors or employees are travelling, they report that they have used those expenses. It has to be outside of South Australia, so if they leave the state and decide to use ratepayers' money for expenses outside of the state for travelling they need to report that expense.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes this amendment. The comments I made in relation to an earlier amendment also apply here. These amendments place, in the government's view, onerous requirements on councils both in terms of timing and in detail. The government notes that this amendment proposes to capture this information in a register of interest. The purpose of this register is to ensure the council members have access to information about their CEO or other employees as the council determines so that they can have confidence that the CEO is managing any conflicts of interest appropriately.

In the government's view, it is not nor should it be publicly available information. It is therefore difficult to see the value in requiring the CEO to provide information about travel they may have undertaken in the course of their duties to the council in this way. For those reasons, the government is opposing the amendment.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Greens are opposing this amendment. We saw it as largely consequential on the debate that we had earlier in relation to accountability, so we are not supporting this amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will also be opposing this amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will be supporting the amendment.

New clause negatived.

Clauses 74 and 75 passed.

New clause 75A.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I move:

Amendment No 26 [Bourke–1]—

Page 42, after line 21—Insert:

75A—Insertion of Chapter 7 Part 4 Division 1 Subdivision 2AA

Chapter 7 Part 4—after section 119 insert:

Subdivision 2AA—Travel by employees

119AA—Travel by employees

(1) A council must—

(a) within 14 days after the end of each quarter, publish in a prominent location on its website information as to the particulars (including the cost) of any travel beyond the limits of South Australia undertaken by an employee of the council during the quarter that was, or will be, funded in whole or in part by the council; and

(b) within 3 months after the end of each financial year, publish in a prominent location on its website information as to the particulars (including the cost) of any travel beyond the limits of South Australia undertaken by an employee of the council (other than a person to whom Division 2 applies) during the financial year that was, or will be, funded in whole or in part by the council.

(2) Any details published under subsection (1)—

(a) must not disclose the name of the employee who undertook the travel, but must instead refer to the title of the position of the employee; and

(b) must remain available on the website for inspection by members of the public until 5 years has elapsed since the employee ceased employment with the council.

(4) In this section—

cost of travel—

(a) includes accommodation costs and other costs and expenses associated with the travel; but

(b) does not include land based travel costs;

land based travel costs means costs attributable to transportation by road, rail or other means of transport on land.

This amendment is fairly identical to the previous amendment. When an employee travels outside of the state they need to report that and be open and accountable for how they are using ratepayers' money. The amendment excludes requiring employees to disclose their names, and they will only be referred to by the title of the employee's position.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We had a similar debate earlier and for similar reasons the government will be opposing this particular amendment.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Greens will be opposing this amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be opposing this amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We will be supporting the amendment.

New clause negatived.

Clauses 76 to 78 passed.

Clause 79.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I move:

Amendment No 27 [Bourke–1]—

Page 44, after line 21 [clause 79, inserted section 120A]—After subsection (1) insert:

(1a) An employee behavioural standard must not diminish a right or employment condition under an Act, award, industrial agreement or contract of employment.

This is an important amendment that refers to what we discussed in amendment No. 2 and the importance of having an industrial association put back into this bill. We are inserting:

(1a) An employee behavioural standard must not diminish a right or employment condition under an Act, award, industrial agreement or contract of employment.

This amendment will help clarify that any behavioural standards introduced by a council should not undermine the rights of an employee that they receive as part of their employment. This is a commonsense amendment that is put in place as a safeguard to provide standard protections for employees.

Why would we not include this amendment? That is my question. We need to make sure that all employees feel safe in their workplace, and by inserting this back into behavioural standards that will make sure that they do feel safe.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes this amendment. The government's advice is that there is nothing in the proposed provisions relating to behavioural standards that would imply that they would diminish any existing rights within industrial agreements and contracts. The government emphasises that the purpose of the behavioural standards is to give councils the opportunity, not an obligation, to state the standard of behaviour that they expect of their employees.

This could be to respond quickly and helpfully to questions and complaints, or to be respectful when dealing with ratepayers and each other. The bill proposes that more serious matters—integrity matters—are captured within the legislation. For those reasons, the government does not support the amendment moved by the honourable member.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: One of the very first amendments the Hon. Emily Bourke introduced to this bill was to incorporate a reference to unions or industrial associations. We supported the insertion of that definition because we felt that it had some work to do—not necessarily all the work that the Hon. Emily Bourke wants it to do, but at least some of the work.

This provision, in consultation with the LGA and the notes I took, probably does not achieve much but I think it is an important statement of principle, that you could in theory have a conflict between something that has been set as an employee behavioural standard that is diametrically opposed to a right or an obligation that a person has under some other act, award, industrial agreement or contract of employment.

It is very unlikely to be a live issue, but technically it could be. At the risk of stating the obvious, I think we do need to make sure that we do not have diametrically opposed obligations in different instruments, so the Greens will support this amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We will support the amendment. It is important that the rights of employees are protected in every way and that they also are compliant with existing conditions of agreement of employment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will not be supporting this amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I move:

Amendment No 28 [Bourke–1]—

Page 44, after line 25 [clause 79, inserted section 120A]—After subsection (3) insert:

(3a) Before a council—

(a) adopts employee behavioural standards; or

(b) alters, or substitutes, its employee behavioural standards,

the council must consult with any registered industrial association that represents the interests of employees of councils on the employee behavioural standards, alteration or substituted standards (as the case may be).

This again refers to behavioural standards. We have seen in recent weeks that employees in government, both at federal and state levels, have been subject to poor working environments, and it is essential that employees be given a voice, as mentioned in my second amendment. When a council adopts behavioural standards it is essential that the voice of employees be included so that employees feel they are being listened to. It is not enough that an employer, who can sometimes be the source of the breaches of behavioural standards themselves, be the sole writer of the standards.

The development of behavioural standards needs to be done in an inclusive and constructive manner. When you look at the amendments made to the act, the industrial association representative has been removed by the government. That in itself is a clear indication of their hope of removing an industrial association participating in the behavioural standards of this act. I feel that reinstating this as a requirement, to have a registered association as part of the discussion, is an important step in ensuring that employees do feel safe in their workplace.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes the amendment. I am advised that when the bill was originally introduced it contained a similar clause, but it was removed by an amendment moved by the Deputy Premier, following feedback from some councils and the LGA I understand, and the former ICAC, on the difficulties involved in 68 councils consulting on proposed employee behavioural standards. However, councils may choose to consult with registered employee associations when considering behavioural standards for employees.

The government emphasises again that, unlike previous codes of conduct for council employees, councils are not required to have these employee behavioural standards in place. However, they must consider whether they should within the first six months of each periodic election. This could mean that many councils, if not the whole 68, could be attempting to consult with registered associations within a very short period of time. The change reflects the approach taken in the bill where more serious integrity matters are captured in the legislation, and each council has flexibility to determine matters relating to behaviour.

Also as a result of this, the provision that formerly provided for a contravention or noncompliance with a code of conduct to be grounds for disciplinary action is proposed to be removed from the act. Councils will manage compliance with expectations about behaviour in accordance with all relevant employment and industrial law and agreements.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I said before that the Greens supported the inclusion of a definition of unions back into the bill because there was some work for them to do. This is that work. Effectively, what the Hon. Emily Bourke's amendment says is that when the council is writing rules about how they think their employees should behave, the council should consult with the union that represents those workers. That makes eminent sense to me.

I do accept what the Treasurer has said, that it might be time consuming, it might be difficult and it might be that certain unions are consulted 68 times, or it may be that common sense prevails and that councils in a job lot prepare their employee behavioural standards. It is hard to imagine why an employee in Burnside should behave differently to an employee in Charles Sturt.

My guess would be that it will be a common document; there will not be that requirement, I do not think, to consult 68 times. It might turn out that I am wrong and someone reads the letter of the law and says, 'No, you have to consult us each time,' but the bottom line is, in setting standards for how workers should behave, should the workers' representatives be consulted? Yes. So the Greens will be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: The Hon. Mark Parnell could not have put it any better. Of course they need to be represented in any discussions like this, so we are supporting the amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will not be supporting the amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 80.

The CHAIR: In coming to clause 80, I have to alert the committee that on line 15 there is a typographical error. It refers to 31 September; that will be amended to 30 September. With that in mind, I am going to put the question that the clause stand as printed.

Clause passed.

Clauses 81 to 90 passed.

Clause 91.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I move:

Amendment No 29 [Bourke–1]—

Page 54, after line 17—Insert:

(1) Section 131—after subsection (1) insert:

(1a) The annual report must include the amount of legal costs incurred by the council in the relevant financial year.

This amendment increases openness, transparency and accountability by requiring that the annual legal costs of a council be disclosed in its annual report. We have all seen that councils have incurred significant legal costs whilst engaging in sometimes petty internal disputes, which we have discussed in previous amendments.

These legal costs can add up, and ratepayers deserve to know how much is being used on legal costs so that they can determine whether these costs are in line with their expectations and done for the benefit of their community. We understand that councils do legitimately need to engage legal services from time to time, especially with issues relating to planning and other complex areas of the law, but the engagement of these services needs to be done in a transparent manner.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government is opposing the amendment. The amount that a council spends on legal costs is currently included in the council's audited financial statements which are, of course, required to be included in its annual report. Councils are required to prepare financial statements and notes in accordance with standards prescribed by the regulations. The model financial statements are prescribed for this purpose and do require legal expenses to be a separate expenditure line item in a council's financial statement.

Regardless, the government notes that the requirements for the contents for annual reports are set out under schedule 4 to the act and these can be set by regulation. If there is a need to include this information in a different form this would be, in the government's view, a more appropriate mechanism to do so.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The government's position on this amendment is that it is not necessary; it is covered elsewhere. Another way of looking at that same question is: does it do any harm? I have to draw attention to the section of the act that relates to annual reports. I do note—and I think the Treasurer alluded to this—that often when you see legal expenses assumptions can be drawn that it must be in relation to disputation. I know at one point a lot of my rates appeared to be going into legal fees as councillors fought each other over code of conduct violations but, as the Treasurer said, often legal fees are in relation to property transactions or contractual matters and they are a necessary part of expenditure.

The Greens see no harm in including this in the annual reporting section. We would simply say that the appearance in an annual report of a large legal bill does not necessarily imply an incompetent council that cannot get its act together; it might just be in relation to the volume of tricky work that they have had to do. It might not relate to anyone suing them or them suing anyone else, it might simply be routine legal work.

On that basis, it does no harm but does potentially draw attention to the fact that if legal expenses become a very large component of a large number of councils' expenses, then it may well be the trigger for looking at how councils get legal advice. Perhaps they currently use a lot of private lawyers, maybe there could be a case for local councils to have access to the Crown Solicitor's Office—I do not know, I am only thinking aloud here—but it seems that a very large legal bill might indicate that a reform might be needed somewhere. However, on the basis that this amendment does no harm and that the amount disclosed might be of interest, the Greens will support this amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We will be supporting the amendment. I note in the LGA's comments in relation to this they say that the ALP amendment would breach councils' rights to legal professional privilege, and I just do not understand how that could be. It is not asking councils to spell out what advice they did get, it is simply stating, 'Tell us how much you paid out in legal costs in that year.' You only have to look, just in recent years, at how many councils are embroiled in all sorts of litigation—councils, councillors—it just seems to be now a go-to thing that when there is some kind of a dispute within the council, bang, straight to a lawyer. Certainly, the LGA has one law firm that now seems to represent all the councils.

But it is clear to me that today the costs of litigation are going up with councils, and I think ratepayers have a right to know how much is actually being expended on legal fees. As the Hon. Mark Parnell points out, there could be other issues—planning advice or other matters—that might relate to elected members' rights or eligibility or things like that.

I think it is important, again in the interests of transparency, that where ratepayers' money is being spent it is being spent appropriately and that questions can be asked after the publication each year of information, such as legal expenditure. Ratepayers have a right to know where that money has been spent and if it has been spent appropriately. I think it is a good amendment and I support Labor for it.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting this amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Parnell–1]—

Page 54, after line 17—Insert:

(1) Section 131(5) and (6)—delete subsections (5) and (6) and substitute:

(5) A copy of the annual report must be submitted by the council to the persons or bodies prescribed by the regulations on or before a day determined under the regulations.

This is the only amendment that I have moved to this act. This amendment is an odd one in many ways, and it comes out of some conversations that I have had with the staff of both houses of parliament, who find themselves every year having to file and manage 68 annual reports from local councils, in paper form, which take up vast amounts of shelf space and which, I am reliably informed, no-one has ever asked to access.

The reason I say that with some confidence is, first of all, staff have told me that, and I have spoken to both houses. The point is that when a local council issues an annual report, first of all it is, obviously, raised at the council meeting, it is then put on the council's website and it is in all of the council's libraries. I spoke to the parliamentary librarian; they get a copy in the library. But primarily, it is online, and the requirement for a physical copy of every council's annual report every year to be filed in the basement of Parliament House is an idea whose day has come and gone. We do not need to do that.

I think the key thing is that members have access to these documents—and they do, online. When I was discussing it with the Hon. Emily Bourke's predecessor, one thing that I know Labor was interested in was whether we could have a system whereby all members are notified that an annual report has been prepared. When I looked at this—and I note that the important Standing Orders Committee meets again next week, after Easter—there do not appear to be any current arrangements for notification of a document being available, outside the regime of tabling.

Historically and traditionally, documents are tabled, and they are tabled in hard copy form. I would like to think that eventually we could come up with a system where documents are tabled in electronic form and there is no need for a staff member to get an ink stamp out, stamp the top of it saying it has been received and file it away in a basement somewhere where no-one will ever look at it. We have to move beyond that.

I say to the Hon. Emily Bourke on behalf of the Labor Party, I looked to see if there was an arrangement for direct notification. I would like to think that local councils will eventually all have subscription services, where people sign up not just to a newsletter but to all manner of information that councils routinely put out. We know that councils are going to have guidelines and protocols for communications with their citizens. That would be an appropriate way for people who want to get the annual report to register to at least be told when it has been published. There is no self-serving here. I am trying to save our hardworking staff, in both chambers, from the need to file these hard copy annual reports.

Having said that, what my amendment does is say that the government, through regulation, can determine who has to get a copy of the report. If the government really thinks that both houses of parliament need physical copies, you can put it back in the regulations. I hope you do not, but I have left that option there. It removes the specific reference of local council annual reports being physically tabled in both houses of parliament, where they will never be looked at.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes the amendment. I guess the government's view is a bit old school in relation to this. Increasingly, we see the activities of foreign actors, as people who create havoc with electronic records are referred to. I think the notion that anyone believes that anything stored electronically these days is sacrosanct, safe, forever and a day is perhaps not moving in the real world.

Those of us who are advocates of hard copies remaining perhaps are more and more fortified as each week goes by when we hear of the activities of foreign actors, as we have seen in relation to recent events where whole systems have been either destroyed, impacted or distorted in a particular way.

I am not going to go on at length about this because this particular debate is a mere small portion of an overall debate about the safety and security of electronic records, which is a much broader debate than this mere amendment in this particular bill, but it gives me the opportunity, as we bid farewell to the Hon. Mr Parnell in his remaining days in this parliament, to briefly wax lyrical about something I know very little about but nevertheless am fearful of in relation to the security of electronic records.

For those reasons, the government feels security in the current safety of those hard copies sitting, potentially for many years, unmolested by members of parliament and others. Nevertheless, we can be safe in the knowledge that, should something happen, they will always be there as a secure record of what has occurred.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We will be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: We will be supporting this amendment, but I will put on the record that we would hope that there would be a way found for both chambers to be notified of these reports being made available. It was particularly hard to keep a straight face through the Treasurer's statements of the fear of security and online data being shared in an inappropriate way.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 92 to 102 passed.

Clause 103.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I move:

Amendment No 30 [Bourke–1]—

Page 56, line 21 to page 57, line 33—This clause will be opposed

I also highlight that amendments Nos 31 and 32 are consequential to this amendment. We will be opposing the government's changes to this section and sections 194A and 194B. We oppose these clauses because ultimately it makes it too easy for councils to revoke community land status with appropriate scrutiny and consultation with the community.

Community land forms an important part of our neighbourhoods and services provided using land to connect a society in a vital and tangible way. This includes community halls, sports clubs, parks, recreation centres and many more spaces that can bring communities together in a safe way and also keep them connected. We have seen that during COVID people are looking more for this service of having community space so that they can keep connected to their community.

The act currently prevents the erosion of community land by a process requiring consultation and ministerial oversight. This is an important safety net that protects the value of community spaces. The state government's own guidance paper for the revocation of land classification, as outlined in the act, states that the objectives are to protect community interests in land for current and future generations.

Community land can be used for business purposes and can be leased or licensed without the need to revoke community land classification. Council cannot dispose of or sell community land unless the classification of community land has been revoked. The government's amendment seeks to erode the safety net by making it easier than ever before for councils to revoke community land status, to the detriment of local services and facilities but, most importantly, to the community.

Under the current process outlined in section 194, all community land revocation applications have to go to the minister for approval following a public consultation process. According to the information provided to me, only 14 applications were sent to the minister in 2014, which is not what you would consider an onerous amount of work for a minister's department to have to consider.

Under the new process put forward by the government, community land cannot be revoked if the land forms part of the Adelaide Parklands or if it is protected by regulations set by the government or if the land is specified in schedule 8, which only includes eight parcels of land. Outside this relatively limited list of eight parcels of land, a council would be free to revoke community land status on any piece of land without ministerial oversight. This completely undermines the safety net that has been put in place for years and years and has worked so well to protect community land.

Ministerial oversight is essential to ensure that councils are following the steps correctly when community land revocation occurs. In making their assessment, the minister must not only consider the feedback provided by the council but that of the local community when assessing the merits of a proposal. This may be lost entirely if a council can revoke community land without a ministerial safety net.

Just as the Legislative Council is a safety net to this parliament, so too is the Local Government Act a safety net in protecting community land for current and future generations. It is important that we have a minister as a safety net when considering the revocation of community land to ensure that councils are following appropriate community engagement when considering removing community land status.

This is highlighted through an example at the Town of Walkerville, which was found to have failed to follow the community consultation process when seeking to revoke community land status on the Walkerville YMCA site in 2016. This was only discovered when the Town of Walkerville proceeded to revoke the remaining community land status of that site in January 2020.

When they submitted a requirement to revoke the community land status, the minister found out that they actually had not followed the correct process: they had not consulted with the community, they had not advertised in the local paper and they had not advised the community that they were going to revoke that site. If the minister had not been a part of this process, neither the community nor the council would have been made aware of this failing to follow the act.

Essentially, this is a really important part of the Local Government Act because we need to ensure that our community land stays in community hands.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes the amendment. The amendments that the bill puts forward simplify the process by which councils can revoke the community land status of land, with the important proviso that ministerial approval is still needed in certain circumstances, for example, when a council proposes to sell or dispose of land that is actively used by the community.

As outlined to me, and as I understand it, there is a process outlined in the bill that would distinguish land that is still actively used. Let's say, for example, that a park would still require ministerial approval, but in a regional area a road reserve that no-one would argue is used by the community at all could be handled expeditiously by the council. I am advised that under the current arrangements all those minor and more significant issues currently are required to come to the minister for ministerial approval.

My advice is that all the government is seeking to do here is to, in essence, cater for the circumstances the honourable member is talking about: where there is community support for a particular park, area or space within a community, there is still ministerial approval that is required. But in a minor type matter where you are in a particular regional area—a road reserve or something like that—the issue can be handled by the people who represent their local constituents at the local level, that is, their elected members on the local council.

I am also advised that the bill proposes a regulation-making power that could be used to prescribe further circumstances where ministerial approval of the council's community land revocation proposals is necessary. The government's view is this strikes a good balance between reducing red tape and ensuring proper oversight of the most critical revocation proposals. Of course, councils will still be required to follow a careful process, including proper community consultation, when making a decision about a community land revocation that is not required to be approved by the minister.

Following some comments made in a second reading contribution to this debate, the Attorney also seeks to clarify that, while ministerial approval can be delegated to a departmental official, that is not typically the case. I am advised that the Minister for Planning and Local Government currently considers all applications that are made for her approval.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Under section 194A, there is a listing of reasons why you need to go to the minister to seek revocation of a site. The Treasurer would have us all believe that there is a small section of land next to a road and it is just too complicated to have to worry about going to the minister. That is a really easy throwaway example, but ultimately this is taking away community land that was there for a reason.

We can be looking to those eight parcels of land that will be protected and that you will have to seek approval from the minister for. You could be looking to the Adelaide Parklands or you could be looking to Crown land to revoke that community land status. But it highlights something quite peculiar as well within the amendments put forward by the government, that it has to be for a public purpose that is in use.

If I again look to the YMCA, for example, the council has ceased the lease of the YMCA so coincidentally it is now a vacant site. Therefore, the council will not have to seek approval from the minister about whether that land should be taken away from the community. The only reason why you seek to remove the community land status of a site is so that it is easier to sell. At the end of the day, when we remove a requirement and that takes away a safety net on protecting community land, you are actually making it easier for a council to sell community land and for it to be taken away from the use of the community. I would ask the council to consider that.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I accept what the Treasurer is saying that there are some parcels of land that are not terribly controversial and could be disposed of, and I understand the Treasurer's desire to do that in as efficient a way as possible. However, the Greens' approach to community land is that we do put it on a bit of a pedestal, and my personal approach has been exactly the same as it is for national parks or conservation parks; that is, the principle of acquisition and disposal should be: easy in, hard out. In other words, it should be easy to acquire a national park or to create a national park or to create a municipal park or whatever, and it should be very difficult to undo that; that is, easy in, hard out.

The difficulty of undoing community land is simply that there is a check and balance in the system; that is, it has to go through a council process, a community consultation process and the final process is that it goes to the minister. For those noncontroversial cases, the minister is going to sign off on it; it is not going to be at all difficult. But there are cases where it is incredibly contentious.

The Treasurer has pointed out that this new regime of bypassing the minister will not apply to land that is actively used. The problem is that you have land that would be actively used if only the council had spent some money on opening it up for public use. So you might have land that has amazing potential as valuable community land but it is currently not being used for that purpose because no effort has been put into making it accessible, for example.

So on the basis of easy in, hard out and on the basis that there have only been about 14 cases a year that have had to go to the minister, the Greens are inclined to support the Labor amendments Nos 30, 31 and 32, which are all consequential. We want to ensure that all revocations of community land need to go through that final stage, which is ministerial sign-off.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We will also support the Labor amendment. We did have a concern in relation to the fee that would be required if an application was made. I do not know why it is necessary for a fee to be applied to those applications when it goes to the minister to consider. It should be straightforward: 'Here it is. Would you have a look at it and let us know what you think about it?' This would be rather than also having to impose a fee, and I am not sure what the fee would be.

Again, endorsing what the Hon. Mark Parnell said about community land, there have been instances in recent years where the community's concerns have been overlooked in the transfer or acquisition of community land that had been bequeathed to the community decades before, maybe even a century before, that had been long forgotten. I am sure that this would continue to happen.

There could be situations, for instance, in the City of Mitcham in Colonel Light Gardens. If you have been through Colonel Light Gardens, you will know that there are many little side alleys that had been part of the development back at the turn of the last century that were there as part of the garden city project. Who knows? Will councils want to remove one or two of those? Why shouldn't the community have a say and be able to make representations to that? That being the case, when it does happen, why should councils also be forced to pay a fee? So we will be supporting the Labor amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I also will agree to the Labor Party amendments and I agree with the Hon. Mark Parnell's sentiments that it is easy in, hard out.

Clause negatived.

Clause 104.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Bourke, your amendment is consequential, I believe.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: This is consequential.

Clause negatived.

Clause 105.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: My amendment to this clause is consequential to the previous amendments.

Clause negatived.

Clauses 106 to 117 passed.

Clause 118.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I move:

Amendment No 33 [Bourke–1]—

Page 62, line 23 to page 63, line 3—This clause will be opposed

I have a strong belief in this amendment. Members will be aware that Labor has opposed the removal of corflutes because it is inconsistent with the democratic right to political communication. When corflutes go up, people start paying attention. They start turning their mind to who they will vote for at the next election. Often, it is the very first indicator to a person that an election is on its way. Many in this chamber, if not all, would agree that it is difficult to break through the noise and engage with the community on political issues. We need to give the community every opportunity to know who their local candidates are and what they stand for.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government is opposing the amendment. Proposals in the bill, we are advised, are strongly supported by the LGA, which, I am advised, has long advocated for stronger regulation of election signs. The issue that councils raise include the loss of roadside amenity, diminished roadside safety, potential damage to roadside infrastructure and environmental issues caused by the difficulty in disposing and recycling of plastic corflutes. Enforcing the rules around corflutes is also a significant resource issue for councils.

The government also notes that candidates in local government elections have varying degrees of resources, perhaps unlike candidates in state and federal government elections in many cases—not all, but in many cases. Many council candidates simply do not have the resources to print and display corflutes and they should not be disadvantaged because of this. It also should be noted that ballot papers that are mailed directly to voters in local government elections include specific information on all candidates that voters can consider over a two-week voting period.

The bill also proposes that all of this information about council candidates will be available in a single location on the Electoral Commission of South Australia's website. Voters do not have to see corflutes on public roads to understand who is standing in their local council elections. For those reasons, the government is opposing the amendment.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: This is an issue that we were hoping to agitate at some length when we debated the Electoral (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill when we were considering the question of corflutes in relation to state elections. Some mischievous people were suggesting that the Greens might have voted in different directions on that bill, but we will never know because it never got past the second reading, so that committee stage never happened.

I will put on the record that in my 15 years in parliament and 11 years with my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks we have always voted together, and I suspect that we might today as well. I do see a difference in this provision in the bill to that which we were going to consider but never got around to in the state election reform bill. Certainly, the differences are that voting is compulsory in state elections. It is optional in local government elections. The state political scene is a party-dominated scene, whereas local governments, whilst they are full of party members, generally run as Independents. We would like to think they are not under the direct control of political parties, but it is often hard to know.

Also, the reality for someone to run a local council election campaign is that they are not highly paid jobs and people are not going to spend a whole lot of money, but those who have money can blitz the suburbs with corflutes. I am also conscious that a person who you will see more of in coming months, Councillor Robert Simms from the City of Adelaide, is on the record as supporting the position taken by the Local Government Association, and his arguments in favour of banning corflutes made a lot of sense to me.

In this particular bill I have not proposed any amendments. We had some drafted for the state bill about the biodegradable cardboard-based corflutes that remove the need for single-use plastics. We were looking at special exemptions for being able to march down the street holding a banner, which potentially would have been caught by a prohibition, but a lot of those things are not part of the reality of local government elections.

The position that my colleague and I will be taking is to oppose the Labor amendment. The Labor amendment is to oppose the clause, so if we oppose the opposition, we are supporting the clause as written, and the clause as written is that the corflutes will be banned, except in circumstances prescribed by the regulations, and we look forward to seeing those regulations.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will oppose this amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: It is quite disappointing to hear that and the attitude from the Greens, which is totally in contrast to what we agreed for state elections. There is no difference whether it is state or local government or federal government. If you are going to ban corflutes, you ban them right across the board. It would have been very difficult I am sure to ban corflutes for state elections and then you would have had the problem of what you do with federal elections.

I am supportive of corflutes. Despite what the LGA says, it is amazing how many councillors in different councils that I have come across in the last few weeks have come to me and said that they support having corflutes in there because it is a cheap form of advertising for them. The Hon. Mark Parnell says that we do not want to see a blitz of corflutes across a local government area. If there are local government elections, you will have your candidate in that particular ward, and I would not think you are going to see a large proliferation of corflutes in those areas.

In fact, in my ward recently there was a by-election, and I did not see a great proliferation of corflutes through the area. They were sensibly placed and there were only a couple of candidates, but it gave me brand recognition for that councillor. I knew who that councillor was by seeing that face on that poster. If I had bumped into that candidate while he or she were on the hustings, I would have been able to go up to them and have a discussion with them.

I think that corflutes—I agree with the Hon. Mark Parnell—do need to be recyclable, but there is a place for them, contrary to what might be out there in the court of public opinion. They are important, and they are important for candidates to allow the community to know who they are. It is an affordable form of advertising for them, because many of them would not be able to afford pamphlets. You may have some who would be able to distribute some pamphlets, but it is a vital form of advertising that goes hand in hand with elections.

We are supportive, and we will stick by and be consistent with what we said, that what applied for state government should apply for local government. I find it incredible to think that the LGA would be opposed to this. Did they fully consult with all their councils, and did they consult with their members? Anyway, we are supporting Labor.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: I am speaking in favour of the amendment; I agree with the Hon. Mr Pangallo. Corflutes these days have gone down in price a lot. They used to be $15 per corflute; now they have gone down to less than $5. I think banning corflutes will give the sitting member a huge advantage, because the member for that four years would have name recognition in campaigning. It would be very hard for a new candidate to be able to knock off the sitting member without having corflutes, and now with the reduced number of councillors—elected members—the area will be a lot bigger.

So for a new candidate to be able to do a mail-out, a printout and cover a large area it would be very difficult. Having corflutes I think will give the new candidate a better advantage in terms of trying to get in. So I will be supporting the amendment, because I think it just makes it fairer for everyone who runs for council.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I might as well get in on the act while the opportunity is here. Look, I support the amendment, and I must say I am quite astounded at the position the Greens have taken on this. You have some of these council wards having 20,000 members in them. It is important that a candidate who is running for the first time in particular, when there is no recognition, has some sort of opportunity of showing their face on a Stobie pole to get some sort of recognition. Otherwise, it does favour the incumbents.

Also, voting now is by postal ballot, so seeing some corflutes on Stobie poles, or wherever they are going to be put, you know there is going to be a ballot eventually so you actually look for the ballots in your letterbox. I think this is a negative step. I think it is a retrograde step for democracy in this country. I think something more appropriate would have been to put a limit on the number of corflutes instead of banning them altogether. So I support the amendment.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I would also like some clarification regarding the government's wording. When they say they are going to be removing or banning them from public roads or, obviously, fixtures of vegetation, which is quite understandable, does this include A-frames as well? If someone is having a street corner meeting, and they want to have an A-frame on a road or a footpath next to them, will they be able to have that A-frame next to them on the footpath?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that the government will be consulting, should this amendment pass, with the LGA on regulations which can provide for exemptions. It may well be that the use of the A-frame to which the honourable member has referred may be one of those exemptions that, after consultation with representatives of local councils, might be able to be catered for.

I think the community would probably see an A-frame being utilised by a candidate attending a meeting—a single one sitting next to them—as quite different from a significant number of corflutes being hung on transport infrastructure in a variety of places as outlined in the bill, but it would be an issue the government would consult on. It would have to be prescribed by regulation. If it was, it would of course be subject to disallowance by either house of parliament if a majority in either house of parliament were not convinced that this was a worthy exemption or exclusion.

Clearly, this is a significant issue. We did not get to debate the detail in relation to the state Electoral Act, but the indications are now that a majority of members in this chamber are supporting this groundbreaking reform, and there is this sensible provision there for appropriate consultation. As I said, any regulation would be subject to disallowance by this chamber or, in the current circumstances, the other chamber should either house disagree with the nature of any proposed regulation.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Just to expand on the Hon. Mark Parnell's comments throughout the debate about being careful with the legislation that has been put into a bill, I feel as though there is a lot of reliance going on the regulations that this government is going to be creating: there could be; there might not be; you might be able to have one A-frame; you might not be able to have any A-frames; what the time period is for when you cannot have an A-frame; is it never again that you cannot have an A-frame?

When you say that you are going to remove having the access to corflutes in the community, there is no real clarity around what that actually means for an elected representative. When you are in the community, it should be made very clear to the public that you are an elected representative and you are legitimising that you are actually there as an elected representative, and sometimes having a corflute next to you can assist with that.

You also, as a new candidate, need to be able to promote who you are and why you are there as well. What does not seem very clear in this bill, through the government's amendment in the other place, is what will be allowed and what will not be allowed, and what the time frame is and what the time frame is not.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I guess the response to the honourable member's generic question is similar to the response to the specific question in relation to A-frames; that is, should this groundbreaking reform pass the state parliament, the government has the capacity with the regulations to sit down with representatives of local government to come up with a sensible framework which will work for most.

I think, as the Hon. Mr Parnell has identified, council elections are significantly different from state elections. Yes, there are similarities, but there are also significant differences and the protection for the parliament, and for the broader community, is that any exclusions that the government would propose after consultation with the LGA would be subject to disallowance by either house of parliament.

These issues will be properly consulted on and I would encourage the honourable shadow minister, should this groundbreaking reform pass the parliament, if she has ongoing questions to consult both with the LGA and with the Attorney-General (the Minister for Local Government) in relation to any ongoing concerns that she might have with what, as I said, potentially could be a groundbreaking reform to be supported by this chamber.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I had a question because one of the previous speakers raised a concern that this has not been consulted on. If it had not been consulted on I would wonder how it made its way into this bill. But I understand that at the LGA AGM this was voted on, so I imagine that it has been consulted on. My question to the Treasurer is: is it the position of the LGA to ban the corflutes?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that the Hon. Ms Franks is accurate in terms of reflecting the position of the LGA. I think she referred to the fact of it being voted on at their AGM. I am advised that, yes, that is the case. The answer to the honourable member's question is, yes, there has been wide consultation already and there is broad support from those who are elected to represent local government across the state.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I beg to differ there. As I said, there are many councils that have suddenly realised, 'Hang on, what have we agreed to here? What has the LGA agreed to?' Can I ask about the definition of electoral advertising. We have been talking about the accepted corflute with the face of the candidate on there, but of course we have also seen issues—and issues that have been championed by the Greens in local government elections, issues that affect the community, environmental issues—and this is going to prevent those messages also being put out there to the community.

Take an issue with a flood plain or an issue in relation to a park, or even take the gatehouse at Waite. It is a cheap form of advertising and way of getting a message across, which is why I am surprised that the Greens are opposed to it. Okay, let's get rid of the plastic and certainly make them recyclable, but you are also not only going to prevent candidates being able to advertise themselves but there are vital community issues that perhaps community groups would want to advertise or make known in the community during an election campaign.

It seems to me that you really are cutting off a vital form of communication within the community, not just about candidates but about important issues, issues that could affect neighbourhoods and communities, that people need to know about. You are cutting out that vital communication tool, that tool that presents a very perceptive and simple, accurate message about something.

Remember when we were debating the issue about oil drilling in the Bight? Many councils were carrying messages on corflutes urging that mining in the Bight be banned. That was done by local government areas, so you are going to stop that happening. I just find it incongruous that my colleagues on the other side would ban it.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: While we are waiting—

The CHAIR: The Treasurer is consulting.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: That is alright. I am adding to the Hon. Frank Pangallo's comments, just to give them a little bit more time to have a chat over there. To further expand, when you walk around the city at the moment, the Adelaide City Council has placed corflutes on quite a number of Stobie poles, asking the community to participate and provide feedback about how to improve their streets and their neighbourhoods. They may well be limiting this facility as well, to be able to put up on Stobie poles throughout the city that information that they can provide to the community.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I rise to reiterate my consistent opposition to election corflutes on Stobie poles. I do not see how the removal of a piece of plastic with somebody's face or a slogan on it necessarily spells the death knell for democracy in this state. I just want to put on the record my response to a few things.

The Hon. Tung Ngo said that they have become much cheaper now, that they used to be $10 and now they are $5. Can I tell you that if you have money to spend on a lot of corflutes, they become cheaper per unit. Can I also tell you that if you want to print pamphlets, they are a hell of a lot cheaper than corflutes.

I think the idea that somehow people are not going to be able to campaign on issues, or that councils will not be able to make their positions known on an issue, has nothing to do with an electoral campaign where in our local government elections we actually receive materials in a quite uniform and fair way that allows each and every candidate to have a photo sent to them that has their spiel and allows us to do the vote There is in fact an even playing field, something that those candidates who cannot afford corflutes are not disadvantaged by.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Let's just clarify, the issues that are not going to be even canvassed by this particular provision, which allow people to campaign for or against a particular local issue—direct mail letters, digital advertising, handwritten materials and those sorts of things that are distributed; letterboxing, doorknocking, public meetings—none of those opportunities to campaign for or against a particular local issue are going to be impacted in any way.

If this groundbreaking reform is going to pass the Legislative Council, and the current voting indication is it will, there will need to be sensible community consultation with representatives of the local government sector in relation to the regulations that would apply to this, and the sensible question in relation to a single A-frame on a particular occasion would be one of those. No-one is contemplating that, three years out from an election, if there is a protest against the removal of the gatehouse or whatever else it is, the Electoral Commissioner will be launching a prosecution on people under these particular provisions of the act.

At the other end of the continuum, if, in the remaining weeks of an election for local government, during the election period, candidate Pangallo launches 600 lovely photographs of his good self with 'Vote 1 for cranky Franky' as his slogan on the corflutes, then clearly the regulation is intended to ban those corflutes if they are set up on poles on roads all through the local ward that he might be seeking to contest.

So what it is intending to do is clear. At the other end, no-one is contemplating that someone is going to be prosecuted for protesting against the removal of the Waite gatehouse three years out from an election. There are sensible issues that will need to be clarified such as, as I said, the Hon. Ms Bourke's question about a single A-frame advertising a particular person. We can all come up with a whole series of what ifs between what is clearly intended to be banned and what is clearly not intended to be included. There are shades of grey in between.

We can spend the rest of the evening coming up with what ifs. I am not going to, with great respect to all of you, be able to give you specific answers to any of them other than the general response I have just given; that is, we will look at all of these in the regulations and this chamber and the other chamber will have the capacity to disallow if they do not like the regulations.

Given the indications of where the numbers are in this particular debate, as soon as we resolve this clause, given we still have a significant number of other amendments from a number of members and it is approaching 6 o'clock, after the vote on this important amendment, I will propose that we report progress and we can continue the debate later in the week.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: Mr Chair?

The CHAIR: This has been canvassed at great length. The honourable member has not spoken before. I will give him the opportunity, but the issues have been canvassed at great length. The Hon. Mr Hanson.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: I agree with a lot of what my colleagues have had to say. The thing I wanted to add is this has been referred to a number of times as groundbreaking reform; it is clearly not. The level of innovation that has been outlined by the Treasurer in regard to where people are going to go would not be so wide and varied and freely available.

The point I want to make about that is: if it is such a great reform and we are going to get it through, why are we waiting to pass regulations later on around what we are going to do? It seems that, as I think the Hon. Ms Bourke has pointed out, we should have done that before we got here and structured this a little bit better.

I do not think it is going to lead to the end of the world, but it may cause a level of innovation out in the electorate where people are going to start doing things like standing on the side of the road with placards, waving things around. I do not know what is going to happen. I think that maybe what we have done here is ban something without knowing exactly what is now going to happen when we go to an election, leading to some people doing some very odd things. I hope we are prepared for that, but we will see what happens.

The committee divided on the question that the clause stand as printed:

Ayes 9

Noes 8

Majority 1

AYES
Centofanti, N.J.	Darley, J.A.	Franks, T.A.
Hood, D.G.E.	Lee, J.S.	Lensink, J.M.A.
Lucas, R.I. (teller)	Parnell, M.C.	Wade, S.G.

NOES
Bourke, E.S. (teller)	Hanson, J.E.	Hunter, I.K.
Maher, K.J.	Ngo, T.T.	Pangallo, F.
Pnevmatikos, I.	Wortley, R.P.

PAIRS
Ridgway, D.W.	Scriven, C.M.	Stephens, T.J.
Bonaros, C.

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

At 18:04 the council adjourned until Wednesday 31 March 2021 at 14:15.

Committees

Members

Quick Links

Visit

Contents

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS

MEMBERS

GET INVOLVED

ABOUT PARLIAMENT

VISIT

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

CONTACT