Bills

Local Government (Health and Safety Duties) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. S.L. GAME (16:16): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Local Government Act 1999. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. S.L. GAME (16:17): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I rise in an attempt to restore democracy to South Australian councils. I do this by addressing the misuse of section 75G of the Local Government Act, which has seen the Lord Mayor of Adelaide and others of authority within local government quote 'health and safety' to ban people from speaking, to effectively gag them. This is part of a wider phenomenon, often cunningly accompanied by words like 'misinformation' and 'disinformation' that is nothing more than Big Brother's attempt to silence voices of dissent, that is, people who disagree with the establishment's accepted viewpoint.

Recent history shows that a number of South Australian councils have been making decisions that fail to reflect their community's views. I believe my amendments will allow councillors right across the state to have more of a say, better represent their communities and ensure councils are less likely to be dominated by mayors or other elected members with strong political leanings. These amendments may be specific, but they also aim to strike a long-overdue blow for freedom of speech in the local government sector.

The amendments to section 75G of the Local Government Act 1999 that I put forward today relate to the abuse and misuse of the health and safety trope, which is now being wielded as a blunt weapon to mute councillors merely attempting to do what they were elected to do: represent the views of their communities and ratepayers. In short, I wish to change the act to ensure councillors can speak up and speak out without fear of being physically removed from council chambers and therefore having their constituents' voices silenced by improper use of regulation 29.

In November last year, this regulation 29 tactic was deployed on Adelaide City Councillor Henry Davis, who was removed from the chamber for trying to defend the interests of small businesses in the Adelaide CBD. Using his allocated three minutes of speaking time—yes, a whole three minutes—Councillor Davis attempted to outline the concerns small business operators had about the impact of increased parking restrictions and the loss of parking spaces across the Adelaide CBD. Councillor Davis was speaking directly and clearly, in plain terms and with purpose; the kind of language and delivery that gets things done and which is commonplace in outcome-given workplaces.

How the following few minutes played out was extraordinary, and deeply concerning. I have watched the uncut video in its entirety, and I urge all members present to do likewise. I have since learned that a similar sequence of events has happened previously within Adelaide City Council. Clearly, Adelaide City Council Lord Mayor Jane Lomax-Smith has a deep-seated resentment of Councillor Davis, who was attempting to speak about his interactions with CBD traders.

This exchange—which was supposed to be a speech, minus any back-and-forth—ultimately led to Councillor Davis being forced to leave the chamber, unable to complete his response. His crime? Apparently his words and his delivery somehow represented a threat to the health and safety of those elected members present. This is not a joke.

In highlighting the views of Adelaide CBD traders he had spoken to, Councillor Davis was decreed by Dr Lomax-Smith, and enough of her fellow elected members, to be a threat to their health and safety. In reality, the mayor simply disliked the home truths that Councillor Davis was delivering to the chamber, his difference of opinion.

During the exchange that led to him being ejected from the building, Councillor Davis tried to reason with the Lord Mayor, and at no stage raised his voice nor used threatening or offensive language. In speaking to a motion about consulting with traders about car parking, Councillor Davis said:

Issuing fines and making parking inconvenient doesn't just hurt businesses, it deters people from enjoying everything the city has to offer.

He urged the council to 'support your local businesses before it's too late'. Shortly afterwards, while attempting to continue speaking about the traders and their concerns, Councillor Davis was interrupted by the Lord Mayor, who warned that he was 'veering away from the motion'. Councillor Davis replied, 'You know what the motion is? It's about businesses being disrespected.' The Lord Mayor replied, 'Councillor, please don't lecture me.'

On it went, until Councillor Davis finally said, 'I know you don't want to hear it. I know other members don't want to hear it,' and then he was gone. As mentioned, this blatant misuse of section 75G under the existing Health and Safety Regulations means that Dr Lomax-Smith and others in positions of authority within local government can quote 'health and safety' to ban people from speaking.

Another recent example of this health and safety trope being weaponised against free speech occurred at the Yorke Peninsula Council, where police officer and elected member Councillor Adam Meyer was suspended for one month from council, without pay, for speaking his mind. Councillor Meyer was also found to have breached health and safety regulations by sending emails to staffers. These emails were apparently, 'inappropriate, accusatory and/or antagonistic', however it has emerged that Councillor Meyer was merely requesting documents about the construction of a local road on private property. The local ratepayers' association has suggested that claims about employee health were used to deflect scrutiny of council operations.

Meanwhile, in the Adelaide Hills, One Nation candidate for the Mount Barker Council, Rebecca Hewett, was recently shut down in the council chambers after unsuccessfully attempting—on six occasions—to move a motion outlining community concern about council paying for a Sorry Day event on Australia Day. The incident came after Councillor Hewett created a Facebook poll asking the community if it supported council funding of the event on 26 January, with 85 per cent of respondents voting against the move.

Mayor David Leach requested her to 'immediately' take her poll down. Ms Hewett attempted to address the matter (including the mayor's order and the results of the poll) in the council chamber, leading to her effectively being silenced and the community's view going unheard.

Since these recent incidents my office has received other anecdotal examples of councillors being shut down, of councillors being unable to air the voices of ratepayers and community members. As members present would realise, this is bad for democracy. Further, in Councillor Davis's case, to have a democratically elected politician thrown out of council indefinitely, with the scarce requirement of just two letters, then facing legal action if they attempt to return, is scandalous.

The changes I have drafted would help prevent this dictatorial power from being exercised and shift responsibility for these decisions to an independent body, the Behavioural Standards Panel. Under subsection 4b the ability to suspend a councillor, or prevent them from carrying out their duties, would need to be based on credible evidence, rather than be at the whim of, in this case, a potentially spiteful mayor intent on stifling free speech.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Point of order: the honourable member has made a number of comments regarding the Lord Mayor of Adelaide which negatively impugn her character, and I see it being a breach of the standing orders.

The PRESIDENT: I am not inclined to support your point of order, but I will look at it. The Hon. Ms Game, if you could get to the substance of what your bill represents and then we will adjourn and move on.

The Hon. S.L. GAME: My amendments state that a direction to remove a councillor from the chamber or stop them from carrying out their duties cannot be given, and I quote:

…merely on the ground of a member having engaged in political criticism, debate or disagreement with a council or council employee on policy or governance issues—unless the direction is based on credible evidence of harassment, threats, criminal or similar conduct…that gives rise to the health and safety of another member or employee of the council.

This is nothing but basic common sense. Clearly, Councillor Davis did not even come close to threatening anyone's health and safety, except perhaps affecting his own blood pressure. If any of the elected members feel unsafe due to robust debate and the contest of ideas, they have no place inside a council chamber.

I have built a number of checks and balances into these amendments, including the local government minister ensuring that complaints that might lead to a councillor being suspended are referred to the Behavioural Standards Panel, and that the councillor in question is given a chance to respond and that the response is considered within 10 business days, not shoved on the backburner as a further delaying tactic.

I consider this to be a matter of principle, and a straightforward one at that. At a time when the South Australian public's perception of councils has dipped to a low mark, we need to be seen to be ensuring that democracy is still alive at the grassroots level of government. Allowing political mayors to smite dissidents and run their own personal agendas is no way to rebuild that trust. There needs to be accountability, and that needs to be shifted in part to the local government minister whose responsibilities include ensuring the sector operates appropriately.

Therefore, I call on this chamber to support this amendment, help protect democracy at the local government level in South Australia and ensure that the voices of community members and long-suffering ratepayers are heard.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.