Local Government, Harassment

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. C Bonaros:

1. That this council calls on the Attorney-General, within three months of the passing of this motion, to instigate an independent inquiry by the equal opportunity commissioner into the prevalence of harassment, including sexual harassment, in the local government sector in South Australia and to report to the parliament on the following matters:

(a) The adequacy of existing laws, policies, structures, and complaint mechanisms relating to harassment, including sexual harassment;

(b) Improvements that may be made to existing laws, policies, structures, and complaint mechanisms relating to harassment, including sexual harassment; and

(c) any other relevant matters.

2. That the equal opportunity commissioner is appropriately resourced to undertake such an inquiry.

(Continued from 4 June 2025.)

The Hon. C. BONAROS (19:58): I rise today to conclude my remarks in relation to this motion, which members will recall deals with the request to have the equal opportunity commissioner inquire into local government. I am glad I took that opportunity to seek leave to conclude my remarks, because it has certainly given rise to a lot of important public discussion and context to many of the issues that I attempted to summarise in the previous session.

I note in particular, of course, the opinion piece in InDaily by Mayor Robert Bria. I did speak to Mayor Bria and said to him, 'Gee, I hope you don't mind, Robert, but it was you I was referring to when I talked about things never being as toxic as they are.' He said, 'I am glad you did.' I also said, 'I may have also mentioned your name in those conversations,' and he was more than pleased to hear that, so I am really pleased that he has come out and made the comments that he has made. I think it is worth reflecting on his opinion piece around the dream of serving the community, which he sees, as many others have seen, has truly turned into a nightmare across so many councils. He says:

Whatever your thoughts are about local government, the recent spate of resignations by mayors and councillors should alarm us all.

It certainly has alarmed us all. He goes on to say:

It is tragic that over time, the dream of serving your community turned into a nightmare.

For those of us who remain, if the biggest challenge facing councils in South Australia is financial sustainability, then elected member behaviour comes in as a photo-finish second place.

He also says that it is alarming that:

In the…three years since the 2022…elections, there have been enough examples of elected members behaving badly to fill a heavy coffee table book.

I think he is mindful of the fact that he may be critical of other councils when things may not be perfect in his own council, but I certainly think the point that Mayor Bria tried to make in that article is that the increasing number of allegations about bullying and harassment against elected members and, in some cases, against staff has been the worst that he has seen, certainly during his 20 years as mayor, and that the majority of the alleged victims of that behaviour are women and, in many cases, women holding the office of mayor. He noted, quite importantly, that over the last 12 months he had actually attended, along with many others:

…several forums for mayors where the issue of bullying and harassment has dominated the discussion, only to leave deeply unsettled, having watched fellow mayors become distressed and in tears as they talk about the lack of respect and toxic atmosphere at council meetings.

He says:

The reality is that bullying and harassment in councils is a scourge that is impacting the reputation of our sector as a trusted level of government, undermining community confidence in decision-making, our ability to deliver services and infrastructure, and costing ratepayers millions of dollars in legal fees.

Equally alarming is that it is also posing a serious threat to gender equity in local government by potentially putting off talented women from serving on council and thereby creating a leadership vacuum that communities cannot afford.

In terms of how widespread the problem is, I agree with Mayor Bria that:

It is no longer acceptable to brush off this behaviour as the wayward antics of a few ego-driven rebels looking for a cause.

A quiet 'fireside chat' over a cup of tea to smooth things over doesn’t cut it.

People’s personal lives and professional reputations are being destroyed [while we take those approaches].

He talks about the need to look at the environment:

…which appears to embolden perpetrators of bullying and harassment, intimidates victims, and demoralises council staff.

He also talks about the fact that the Behavioural Standards Panel has not been the panacea that some thought and hoped it would be. I guess all that points to even more reason—and is in fact the precise reason—why I say the equal opportunity commissioner should actually step into this realm. He goes on to talk about the issue of sanctions against those people who are in breach being like:

…a wet lettuce leaf, leaving victims frustrated and losing faith in a system supposedly designed to protect them…

I have to say that in some respects he is somewhat critical, I think, in a very respectful way, of the ways that we have tried to address this issue. He mentioned that the Local Government Association:

…needs to step up to the plate and make its voice heard that it not only realises that this is a serious problem, but it is also doing something about it.

That is not to say that there are not people who are trying to do something about it. Indeed, I will go on now to just canvas very quickly the work of ALGWA in this space. I am sure many members in this place would have received correspondence from the president of ALGWA, who has taken the time to send correspondence outlining what attempts have been made.

We know there has been a taskforce established. We know there are draft guidelines. A lot of people have invested a lot of work into this and certainly when Ms Lewis stood for president I think one of her main drivers was to ensure—and this is, I think, made clear to all of us—that she did not want any other person to go through what she had gone through when she served as an elected member of Alexandrina Council.

In spite of the mental health toll, physical toll and financial toll this has taken on a lot of individuals, I see a lot of brave people putting their names to a piece of paper and saying that they would like to see this issue addressed. I was joined earlier this evening by a number of mayors and councillors—Mayor Bria could not be here this evening—who are very keen to see this go through: Mayor Wisdom, Mayor Monceaux, Mayor Holmes-Ross, Councillor Hoffmann, former Councillor Pascale and of course Ms Lewis from ALGWA, and I think that is just a demonstration. There is a letter that I think has been circulated to members that is also signed by those mayors and a number of others as well to show that this is a real issue that needs to be addressed.

In closing, I would like to take the opportunity to thank all of them for speaking up. I know it has taken us a while to get here, but certainly what I have seen between February and now is strength in numbers, if you like, and when one person breaks that ice it makes it a lot easier for others to come forward and do the same. My genuine hope is that the equal opportunity commissioner undertaking this inquiry will be able to multiply that effect by many times over what we have seen already.

Before closing, I would like to take the opportunity to read just one letter onto the record that I received and the reason I chose this letter is because it is from the very first person who raised this issue with me. I think she is somebody who is known in these corridors in terms of the roles that she has held in other places as well. It was really a discussion with Ms Louise Pascale earlier in the year that prompted all of this and I think a lot of work on Louise's part was in terms of getting people to be more vocal around the extent of the problem and things that people were not necessarily comfortable talking about either publicly or indeed amongst themselves, so I do thank Louise for doing that.

Even though she starts by thanking me for championing an investigation into the experience of women in local government, before I read this letter I would like to thank her for putting this on our radar as strongly and as passionately as she did and bringing everyone along with her on that journey, which I think is an amazing thing. That letter reads:

Thank you for championing an investigation into the experiences of women in Local Government in the Upper House. It is long overdue. As you know I have now resigned from Adelaide Hills Council because I believe my community can no longer be served adequately by a Council which chooses to spend $400,000 of ratepayers' money on lawyers charged with managing internal complaints with Councillors.

My community of Woodforde is in desperate need of footpaths, maintenance of open spaces, traffic management and lighting. Due to the Hamilton Hill development which has seen 400 new residential dwellings in just 5 years we have grown exponentially and need attention.

When I first raised my behavioural complaints against the conduct of another Elected Member they were dismissed. What followed were 8 countercomplaints against me over 18 months. I cannot tell you what they were for because Adelaide Hills Council have kept them all confidential, but I can confidently say they weren't serious enough to pay lawyers $50,000 to investigate them.

In one case a LinkedIn Post was sent out for investigation at the cost of $10,000.

I requested mediation with the male Councillor who was sending in all these complaints as I wanted the excessive spend of ratepayers money stopped. My first request directly to him was declined, my multiple requests after that through my lawyer to Adelaide Hills Council were never responded to.

This Councillor who raised behavioural complaints against me used the behavioural standards policy in a way that felt punitive and I believe leveraged it in a manner that contributed to a hostile environment.

I had to engage a lawyer to help me manage the barrage of emails I would get from Adelaide Hills Council lawyers or staff on a Friday afternoon around 5pm—just before the weekend.

The personal toll this took on me meant I had to take stress leave twice, the second time I made it clear that these complaints were taking a toll on my wellbeing and safety and presented the Council with a medical certificate.

However the CEO said he could not recognise the certificate, nor halt the investigations while I was on stress leave, this was up to the Councillors who were in charge of the investigations, (because by now the Mayor had been stripped of all her powers under the same policy)—so in essence I could take stress leave but not leave from the thing that was causing my distress in the first place.

It is worth noting that under new provisions of the Work Health and Safety Act, the CEO is actually charged with mitigating risk of psychosocial safety in Councils.

Being an Elected Member in Local Government is not my full time job. It is what I juggled in my life because I have a genuine passion for representing my community through a boundary realignment which is causing conflict and stress with residents—my neighbours.

I'm also a single mother, running my own business to pay my mortgage and raise my son.

It was not uncommon for me to be driving home from Council meetings down the freeway in deep distress—so upset I would just pray I make it home alive to kiss my son good night. I know that sounds dramatic, but Adelaide Hills Council is a half hour drive from my home and I would often drive home either down the freeway or through unlit hills roads home late at night.

I stopped feeling safe in meetings or around the CEO and this male Councillor. I struggled with a constant sense of fear and discomfort.

I could not have dinner with my colleagues prior to meetings because I did not feel safe, I could not socialise with them at the pub after meetings and workshops because of how ostracising this had become.

I was told twice by an Elected Member that the Stirling Pub after council meetings and workshops was where Councillors would gather to bond and workshop ideas. I found out at one of those drinking sessions after an Ordinary Council Meeting a colleague sat with a group of Councillors and the CEO and remarked how well I handled a difficult debate that evening. For which the male Councillor who was lodging complaints against me told his colleagues—including the CEO—the steps you can take through the Behavioural Standard policy to make sure I am kept silent and behaving…

In order to be an Elected Member in the Adelaide Hills Council I had to make a personal safety plan and take blood pressure medication in order to show up and do my job. When I raised with the Acting Mayor all this, my letter was sent out to lawyers—once again. And all I was offered was for him to chaperone me at meetings.

This is a political environment and I acknowledge we will not always get along but I took steps under the Local Government Act to try and resolve issues with the complainant. Instead what prevailed was tens of thousands of ratepayers dollars being spent on lawyers and staff resources being taken away from the community. And with nothing resolved.

Unfortunately even after resigning the Adelaide Hills Council is still spending money on lawyers to send me threatening correspondence and staff resources are being used to canvas journalists against me.

Here is what my mother wrote on the weekend:

'Are you OK? I have just read the Sunday Mail and seen another article on the Adelaide Hills Council. Is there any way this can stop now that you are out? It is really starting to concern me at where this is going to end. Please look after yourself'—and of course, lots of kisses, because it is from mum—'and I am here if you need me.'

Louise does end that by saying:

When does this stop Connie?

And I do not blame her for what she said. It is a story that many of us have heard too often. There is not one part that should not concern any of us that Louise has not covered in her letter. If you do not necessarily buy into the whole—and I am sorry to say it this crassly, but if you do not buy into the whole bullying and harassment thing, $10,000 to investigate a LinkedIn post; $400,000 at one council; if that is not enough to get our support for this then I do not know what is.

It is not hard to see the toll that this takes on people, and I do not think we should underestimate that toll. We have firsthand experience at dealing with that in this place, and the legal profession certainly has firsthand experience at dealing with it in its place and many other workplaces do. But as I said when I first spoke on this issue, this is our third tier of government. And quite rightly, as Louise said in her letter and as Mayor Bria has said in his article, people serve on local council out of the goodness of their hearts. They do not do it because they have to; they do it because they want to give back to their communities, and they want to see their communities thrive.

But this is not what people sign up for. This is not the sort of environment people sign up for, it is not the sort of toxicity people sign up for, and whichever way you look at it and whichever way you spin it, it is just not acceptable.

We have an opportunity here tonight. I am quietly confident—I think I am very confident, but I will remain quietly confident—that the chamber will support this motion. As I said at the outset when I spoke on this issue, there is nothing for the LGA or anyone else to fear here. This is not coming in and pointing the finger at anybody and telling them that they have done the wrong thing. This is about ripping that band-aid off, lifting the lid, looking underneath, identifying the problems and identifying the mechanisms to help local government address what has become, as Mayor Bria said, a very, very toxic workplace.

We should not tolerate that. We do not tolerate it here. I know we always have our ups and downs and there are always issues. Parliamentarians, judges and members of councils have for reasons that go back in time, which we did discuss this evening, historically been held to a different standard, but the bottom line is we do set the standards as well. So I think this is a critical role not just for us in here, not just for the judiciary, which we have already seen well underway in terms of being addressed, but also for the good people who do put up their hands in local government to continue to serve their local communities.

At the end of the day, as Louise said, that is where people want to see their councillors spend their energy and time, and that is where they want council to spend their resources. With those words, I commend this motion to the chamber and look forward to contributions by other members.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (20:18): I rise to speak in favour of the motion. In so doing, I reflect on the fact that I think I am one of three members of this chamber that have had experience on a local council. I know the Hon. Justin Hanson has and the Hon. Tung Ngo. I am certainly a key—and yourself, Mr President, apologies. I am certainly a fan of local councils, and I recognise the important role that they play. I see local government as being the level of government that is most closely connected to the community, and it plays a really important role in terms of representing the voice of the local community. So I am sorry to hear about the experiences that the Hon. Connie Bonaros has shared in the chamber and sorry to hear about the loss of good people from the local government sector.

I thought it might be useful for me to reflect a little bit on my observations from my brief time on the Adelaide City Council. I was on the council between 2014 and 2015. I went into federal parliament and then returned between 2018 and 2021, before I had the privilege of coming into this place. It was really interesting to me to observe the significant change that happened in local government within those four years, and I have wondered over the last few years what has driven that.

I think it is fair to say there has been a significant shift in global politics over the last decade. I hate to say the T word, but I do think Trumpism and the coarseness that has been brought to politics has not helped. I think that local government is particularly vulnerable to the effects of that because it does not have the conventions and the processes in place to manage conflict that we have here in a chamber like ours, which is set up as a very adversarial environment. We have conventions and processes that help us manage that conflict. I often worry that local government does not have those same traditions in place.

I saw in particular that change happen in Town Hall. During my first period on council, between 2014 and 2015, I thought the council was very collegial and effective, but the latter council, which was controlled by the Team Adelaide factional grouping, really seemed to lead to a huge amount of acrimony and dysfunction. Whilst within the parliament we operate on a political party system, and we have our structures and processes in place to manage that, local councils do not. I do think we need to think a little bit about what we can do to better equip councils to manage some of those conflicts at a time when conflict in politics is becoming more prevalent and our constituency is becoming more fractured.

I think there are a few issues here, and I support the investigation that the honourable member has proposed, but there are a few structural problems with local government that I would encourage the state government to consider. We need to look at remuneration for local councillors, which is significantly below par in terms of the expectations and what we ask of our elected members, particularly with some suburban councils where people are required to do a huge amount of work and do not get much reimbursement. I think that significantly reduces the number of people who are able to put themselves forward to represent their community, particularly when you are looking at people who might have child care or family obligations and the like, or younger people who might be working as well and struggling to make being on council financially viable.

As part of that there needs to be a discussion around sitting times. We have talked a lot within this chamber about the effect of having late-night sittings on behaviour and temperament. I do think it is a problem that local councillors are expected to finish a full working day, in many cases, and go well into the night debating complex matters that impact on their community. That might have suited 30 or 40 years ago when councillors may have been more likely to be people who were retired from the workforce—and I do not say that with any disrespect—but over time the profile and the make-up of council has changed and councillors are more likely to be juggling other work priorities, so I do not think it is fair to expect councillors to go along at the end of a full workday and go to a meeting that is late in the night; that is not conducive for good behaviour.

I wonder also whether the low turnout in local government elections is contributing to some of the factional and personality-based problems that we have at a local level, because when you have so few people voting and participating in local councils there can be a propensity for a small group of individuals or a clique to get control of a council in a way that we do not see happen within our broader parliament.

I have been on a long journey around compulsory voting for local councils. I was against it for many years because I did not want to see strong, independent community voices being shut out of council, but I have started to think in recent years that maybe we need to have a discussion around compulsory voting within our local council sector because that may be a way of weeding out particularly problematic personalities. We know also that the political party system itself applies a level of probity sometimes to candidate selection, which might also play a role in terms of weeding out some difficult personalities, not to say that you cannot be a difficult person and still come from a political party. I just make the point that there are a few other layers that might be in place.

I do support the Hon. Connie Bonaros' referral to the commission. I note that the government have an amendment. I am not sure what value that adds, but I am open minded in that regard and I will listen to the debate. If there is a good reason to support it, I am open to it, but I am not sure what that really adds at this level.

My final point would be that I think the previous Liberal government, under the leadership of Vickie Chapman, did do quite a bit of work on this area in terms of trying to set up a standards panel and look at how we manage behaviour. Clearly, those changes have not satisfied community expectations in terms of delivering the kind of outcomes that we want. I think it is time for us to have a bigger debate around the structure of local government and the expectations of local government within our democracy.

I see it as being a really vital sector. It should be resourced appropriately and elected representatives at that level should be respected for the work that they do. As part of this referral to the equal opportunity commissioner, I hope the government also considers some of the other structural barriers that might be contributing to some of the behavioural problems that have been observed, particularly within the local government sector.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (20:26): I rise to contribute to the debate on the motion moved by the Hon. Connie Bonaros. This motion calls for an independent inquiry into the prevalence and handling of harassment, including sexual harassment, in South Australia's local government sector. That is a serious issue and one that warrants proper attention and action, so the opposition will be supporting this motion.

The adequacy of current laws, policies and complaints processes and whether improvements can be made are legitimate and necessary questions. We support the involvement of the equal opportunity commissioner in leading this inquiry and reporting back to the parliament. However, we do take serious issue with the government's proposed amendment, which I believe is going to be moved by the Hon. Russell Wortley, who wants the local government sector to provide appropriate resourcing to the equal opportunity commissioner to undertake such an inquiry.

We believe that proposal is somewhat outrageous, given the fact that the equal opportunity commissioner is a statutory office holder funded by the state government. This is proposed to be a state-led inquiry into matters of serious public interest, triggered by concerns raised in this parliament and endorsed certainly by a number of its members. For the government to now shift the cost of that inquiry onto councils is an abdication of responsibility, we believe.

I suspect many people in the local government sector would feel rightly insulted and somewhat let down by the government's amendment, because I think it also undermines the spirit of the motion. It sends a message that the government is willing to be seen to act but not carry the responsibility for it. While the opposition supports the motion, I do want to make it abundantly clear that we do not support the amendment that shifts the cost of a government inquiry onto local councils.

We firmly believe that the government should fund this inquiry through the normal mechanisms that support the Equal Opportunity Commission and that would preserve its independence, protect its credibility and ensure that victims of harassment and the community more broadly can have confidence in the process. I commend the motion in its original form.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (20:29): I rise in full support of this motion and I thank the Hon. Connie Bonaros for moving this motion which calls for an independent inquiry into the prevalence of harassment, including sexual harassment, in South Australia's local government sector.

This motion builds on the precedent set by this Legislative Council in 2020, when we passed a motion that led to a comprehensive inquiry into harassment in the legal profession. That inquiry was a turning point. It uncovered systemic issues, gave voice to those who had long been silenced, and laid the foundation for reform.

The recommendations from that inquiry have been captured in the Statutes Amendment (Legal Profession Review Recommendations) Bill 2025. I believe that important reforms can be achieved when we listen, investigate and act. Now we must extend the same commitment to make an inquiry into local government.

In March, The Advertiser reported that several councillors, many female elected members, raised concerns about behavioural policies being misused to silence dissent and to intimidate. This is not just poor governance, it is a matter of workplace safety and democratic integrity. We only have to look to recent events in the City of Burnside to understand the urgency of this motion.

As reported by InDaily in February 2025, internal disputes within the council have escalated to what was described as ridiculous proportions. Council meetings have become entangled in personal grievances, procedural gamesmanship and a culture of hostility that undermines not only good governance but also public trust. It also derails the roles of wise decision-making for constituents at the local government level.

This is not an issue confined to smaller or regional councils. Even in the Adelaide City Council, the Lord Mayor recently issued a formal reminder to councillors about acceptable standards of behaviour. As reported in The Advertiser, this followed a series of tense and disruptive meetings that raised serious questions about professionalism and respect within the chamber. Unfortunately, these are not isolated incidents. As the mover and other members have mentioned, they reflect a broader cultural problem across the sector.

At this point I want to acknowledge Bronwyn Lewis, the President of the Australian Local Government Women's Association South Australia for sending me a letter in support of this inquiry. I also note that in her remarks, she outlined that in March, ALGWA SA hosted a session for mayors and elected members, which clearly demonstrates the scale and seriousness of the issues being faced. These include a sharp rise in resignations and departure of capable, community-focused elected members due to the weaponisation of the compliance process and its impact on their mental health. The letter also mentioned that the associations invested significant effort into increasing female representation in local government, aiming for gender parity.

While progress has been made, this fragile momentum is at risk. The current climate also jeopardises efforts to engage candidates from diverse backgrounds, which would be a loss for democratic representation and community leadership across South Australia. I totally agree with those sentiments.

Local government is where many South Australians first engage with public life, yet we continue to hear reports of bullying, harassment, and unsafe workplace cultures. While mechanisms exist through the Ombudsman, the Office for Public Integrity and the Local Government Act, they are largely reactive. They address harm after it has occurred. What this motion proposes is a proactive, systematic approach, an independent inquiry led by the equal opportunity commissioner to assess the adequacy of our current laws and structures and to recommend improvements.

This is not about casting blame or pointing fingers: it is about creating safer, more respectful workplaces where people are able to contribute meaningfully. It is about ensuring that every council worker, every elected member and every community volunteer can participate in public life without the fear of harassment, intimidation or bullying. We have seen what is possible: the legal profession inquiry led to legislative reform. Let us apply the same model to local government. I will not be supporting the government's amendments. I am wholeheartedly supporting this motion in its original form.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (20:35): I would like to move an amendment to this motion:

Leave out paragraph 2 and insert new paragraph as follows:

2. That the local government sector provide appropriate resourcing to the equal opportunity commissioner to undertake such an inquiry.

I rise to speak on behalf of the government in relation to the Hon. Connie Bonaros's motion for an independent inquiry into harassment in the South Australian local government sector. Any form of harassment, particularly sexual harassment, is unacceptable in a workplace environment and, to be quite honest, unacceptable in any environment. South Australians also have a right to expect high standards of behaviour from their elected officials, whether they are state members, federal parliamentarians or local councils.

It is for these reasons that the government supports the intent of the honourable member's motion. The motion particularly seeks to have the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity undertake the review. This follows a similar inquiry into harassment in the legal profession undertaken by the commissioner in 2021. That 2021 inquiry was preceded by a motion from the Hon. Connie Bonaros. More recently, the Attorney-General commissioned the equal opportunity commissioner to undertake a further review of harassment in the legal profession, the report of which was published in February this year, three years on from the 2021 review.

This 2024 report was received by the government in December last year and published publicly in January. Recommendation 1 of that review was that the courts' Respectful Behaviours Working Group be reconvened and adequately resourced to do so. The Attorney-General's Department recently provided $100,000 in funding to the Courts Administration Authority to facilitate this recommendation. The government continues to work closely with the courts and with legal sector stakeholders in working through the report's recommendations.

The issue of harassment in the local government sector is an important one that the sector itself must bear some responsibility for addressing. It is therefore proposed that the local government sector provide support for such a review to be held. Of course, the state already provides significant resourcing to the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity and her office, which would also support such a review. In the event the motion is successful today, I understand the Attorney-General intends to work with the commissioner and the local government sector, as well as with relevant unions and other stakeholders, on how such a review might operate.

I note also that the Local Government Act 1999 provides an existing framework for managing council member conduct. Council members are required to comply with the Behavioural Standards for Council Members and any behavioural support policies adopted by the council. Councils have the primary responsibility for managing complaints about breaches of these standards. This reflects the longstanding approach that councils are best placed to deal with these matters.

Where a council member's behaviour is alleged to be a repeated or serious behaviour, complaints may be referred to the Behavioural Standards Panel by the mayor, by a resolution of the council, by three elected members or, in specific circumstances, by the chief executive officer. Complaints of alleged breaches of the integrity provisions under the act, such as alleged breaches of conflict-of-interest requirements or disclosure of confidential information, are dealt with by the Ombudsman.

In closing, I wish to thank the Hon. Ms Bonaros for bringing this important motion to the council. I commend my amendments to the members.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (20:39): I rise to support this motion. I indicate I will be supporting the government amendment and thank them for explaining it, which is what I had hoped to happen before I made my contribution. I start my speech to this motion with some words that have been sent to me, urging me to support this motion, from a female mayor who states to me:

For nearly two years my life has been an ongoing nightmare due to bullying, harassment, misinformation, disinformation, allegations and counter allegations. Every agency I have liaised with to report this behaviour has either failed me or not had the jurisdiction to help me. These include, among others, my own Council, the Local Government Association, Local Government Risk Services, SafeWork SA, legal firms, and State Government agencies.

I have had to spend $75,000 of my personal income on legal fees to put my position and seek to defend my reputation, and further expenditure on associated mental and physical health issues. This is more than my yearly income. No democratically elected member—Mayors or Councillors—should have to resort to expending such monies against Councils or other Councillors who use ratepayers money to fund their factional agendas.

This is not sustainable for the sector or the communities they serve who face increased rates as a result.

Despite efforts for reform the current Behavioural Complaints system is broken, open to abuse and weaponisation. I have done my best to support other Elected Members across the sector but everyone has their limits as the spate of recent resignations indicates. I too have almost reached my limit.

Please support Connie Bonaros's motion to start the process of recovery.

This is workplace violence against both women and men, but affecting women disproportionately. It is also an assault on local democracy. As the Mayor of Norwood recently said: 'The dream of serving our communities has turned into a nightmare'.

I also reflect on the contribution made by the Hon. Frank Pangallo in this place in question time yesterday, who raised the issue of the Whyalla situation where a Facebook post attracted the ire of a mayor of that council when it was posted by the deputy mayor of that council. I thank the Hon. Frank Pangallo for tabling those documents, because I have availed myself of the supposedly offending Facebook post today and the response from the Mayor of Whyalla. That Facebook post reads:

This is a very uncertain time for our community and although as an elected member I don't have the authority to make changes to private industries, I can be available to listen to the struggles our community are facing and be a voice/advocate wherever possible.

If anyone would like to talk about their current experiences or even just send me an email with your personal account of any issues, then I am here to listen and advocate for you.

I am also connected to a lot of community groups that can help people if they need support. Please reach out either by email—

giving her email address—

or phone—

giving her phone number. It continues:

I am also happy to meet with people 1:1 or as a group.

We are all in this together and as an individual I am passionate about helping and fighting for our community.

That Facebook post saw a response from the mayor that, 'I need to raise an urgent matter.' The response reads, in part:

Your Facebook Post uploaded earlier today, and which has been shared on various community Facebook pages has been brought to the attention of both myself and the Council Executive as potentially breaching Council policy and procedures. That concern will be addressed next week.

Under the heading of a Councillor, you have been answering questions and making comments that may contradict and/or be in conflict with current or future Council decisions and/or positions. You have expressed opinions that, while they may be your personal view, have been made as an Elected Member and may, therefore, similarly contradict the official view of the Mayor (as spokesperson) and/or Whyalla City Council.

The nature of the comments on the Facebook pages have, as to be expected, received a range of strong, negative comments directed at Council, which can not and should not be answered.

I ask you how a Facebook post from a deputy mayor to a city in crisis, offering to listen to her community, can attract such a response? Welcome to councils in 2025.

As Norwood Mayor Robert Bria has very articulately put in his recent InDaily article, there are serious issues here that need to be addressed, and I commend the Hon. Connie Bonaros for bringing this motion before this place to move forward with this issue. The equal opportunity commissioner is an appropriate person to address it and, as she says, rip the bandaid off, take a look and hopefully start the healing.

Mayor Bria has stated that during his nearly 20 years as mayor he has never seen things so bad. He writes in InDaily:

Disturbingly, but not surprisingly, it appears the majority of alleged victims of this poor behaviour are women and, in many cases, women holding the office of mayor.

Over the past 12 months, I have attended several forums for mayors where the issue of bullying and harassment has dominated the discussion, only to leave deeply unsettled, having watched fellow mayors become distressed and in tears as they talk about the lack of respect and toxic atmosphere at council meetings.

The reality is that bullying and harassment in councils is a scourge that is impacting the reputation of our sector as a trusted level of government, undermining community confidence in decision-making, our ability to deliver services and infrastructure, and costing ratepayers millions of dollars in legal fees.

That is why I do believe that the government's amendment is actually appropriate. I think it is quite appropriate that the equal opportunity commissioner, as a respected independent body here, takes on this job, but it is also the responsibility of the Local Government Association to ensure that it is paid for.

The reality is these small issues such as Facebook posts have seen, and certainly in the Adelaide Hills Council there is a situation of a LinkedIn post, some $10,000 in council fees expended. The LinkedIn post was about women's participation in politics. The LinkedIn post itself, which breached no community standards according to LinkedIn or any other social media platform but certainly raised the concern of other councillors as somehow offending what they saw as the standards that should be upheld, was then also the subject of complaints to the media that, when the author of that LinkedIn post made an apology, she did not do so in a forum in a way, at a time and in a manner that they approved of. She did so at a council meeting when she was requested to do so. They did not like the timing of her apology, so they pursued that in the media as well.

I ask you, in that particular case, about the merit of spending $10,000 on a LinkedIn post, no doubt possibly some tens of thousands of dollars to come on Facebook posts for the Whyalla council unless this sort of behaviour is somehow addressed in a much more productive way than it is currently being done.

I have spoken to many people involved in local council about the current situation of how, if you like, in some ways the thought police—the processes that are meant to protect democracy are actually being weaponized to shut down democracy in our state. It is incredibly important that this is funded appropriately. I am supportive of the government amendment. I do think we need to get on with having an independent body and a respected body such as the equal opportunity commissioner take a look at this issue.

Otherwise, we are going to not only lose good people from councils, we are going to continue to see tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars of good money going after bad for pathetic reasons such as Facebook or LinkedIn posts that offend somebody's sensibilities, but where they have a tool at their disposal that can be weaponised to go after the person who has offended them, even though most people in the community—and I certainly read out that entire Facebook post, and I cannot see what the issue was with a councillor saying that she was there and willing and ready to listen to her community, a community in distress.

We have councils in distress. We have people who are good councillors and mayors in distress. We are losing good councillors and mayors. This cannot go on. I urge you to support the motion.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (20:50): I start by thanking honourable members for their contributions this evening: the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Dr Centofanti; the Hon. Jing Lee; the Hon. Rob Simms; the Hon. Mr Wortley; and the Hon. Tammy Franks. I think, in all, we have summarised the issue that we are trying to address.

The only point that I will raise in closing is the issue of the amendment. I acknowledge the concerns that have been raised by the Leader of the Opposition and I particularly acknowledge, in so doing, her concern around regional councils and them having to bear the brunt of some of that cost—if indeed the amendment is agreed to. I guess my conversations have been based around getting this motion through. We have had discussions around how it is going to be paid for. I do not say this flippantly when some people say to me, 'Well, if we can spend $400,000 on legal fees, we can afford to have an inquiry into something that is very necessary,' nor do I attribute that to a single individual either, in so saying, but the ultimate objective here is to get this amendment up.

What I can say from my discussions with the Attorney on this particular point—and I note the Hon. Mr Wortley's contribution—is what we did see from the legal profession inquiry was a labour-intensive inquiry that did put a strain on the equal opportunity commissioner. I think if we are to ask the equal opportunity commissioner today to do this without anything, that strain would be compounded.

We are dealing with local government. While I accept the concerns that have been raised—and they are valid ones—I remain of the view that we do have the opportunity and we should take the opportunity tonight to pass this motion, albeit with an amendment, with a view to how this review might operate and what it will entail, and that in and of itself will entail engagement between the Attorney-General, local government and the Equal Opportunity Commission. I think between those three bodies they would be well placed to work out what needs to be done, how much it is going to cost and how it is going to be funded.

The only other point that I would make in relation to that, if it serves as any comfort to the Leader of the Opposition also, is: we have been down this path before. We have done this with the legal profession, so we are not necessarily starting from scratch. We do not have to reinvent the wheel. The EO Commission will have a lot of the things—I think, and I might be completely wrong, but I am assuming that a lot of the sorts of processes that they will be thinking would apply to this have already been created, so we will not necessarily have to go through that process.

That might be one of the things that alleviates some of the initial costs that we have seen in other inquiries, but that is not to say that there is size and scale here as well. I think the people who are best placed to actually make those determinations are the three bodies that are going to be involved: the Attorney-General, the equal opportunity commissioner and the local government sector. It is on that basis that I am willing to accept the government's amendment on the understanding that they actually, as the Hon. Mr Wortley said, engage in those discussions with those sectors and with the commissioner to work out what needs to happen from here to make it happen.

Amendment carried; motion as amended carried.