HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2022-09-07 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Plebiscite (South East Council Amalgamation) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:55): I rise to make a brief contribution to the Plebiscite (South East Council Amalgamation) Bill 2022, which involves the District Council of Grant and the City of Mount Gambier in organising a plebiscite for the good people of those two council regions to vote on whether they amalgamate those two councils.

Council amalgamations have had varied success over time. In my home council, the Coorong District Council, many years ago when the amalgamations happened in the round that reduced the councils to the 68 we have now in South Australia, we saw the amalgamations of the District Council of Meningie, the District Council of Coonalpyn Downs Council and the District Council of Peake.

Generally, it has been reasonably successful, but then it depends on the administration. It can depend on the councillors, obviously, and it can very much depend on the CEO and the mayor. In regard to the council that was created at that time many years ago, it has had a pretty reasonable run of mayors and chief executive officers. But I was disappointed, and that is being polite, prior to this current council when Councillor Mayor Neville Jaensch was the Mayor of the Coorong council and he did not seem to have any vision south of the motorsport park at Tailem Bend. Because I live at Coomandook, that affected me significantly, as it did many other people of the council district.

The council runs now down from Tailem Bend up near the weighbridges on the Princes Highway—people would be aware of those—down past Tintinara, obviously encompassing Meningie and out through the Mallee, with its boundary on the Southern Mallee District Council around Jabuk on the eastern side of Peake.

As the local member, but more as a concerned ratepayer, before the last council elections four years ago there were many meetings run in the area, and I chaired a lot of them, regarding what was happening, or more accurately what was not happening, in regard to what we call one of the main jobs that council should do, which is looking after our roads. At those meetings I witnessed 500 people, and some of those would have been multiple attendees, I will say that, and there were a couple of meetings I could not get to for various reasons. There was a lot of angst.

We saw a change of council, we saw my good friend Mayor Paul Simmons come in, and I wish him all success in this next council election. I note there are many people standing for election in the Coorong District Council, and I applaud that, that we have so many people standing.

I note in some other council areas some people were elected because they were the only candidate and in some areas there were not enough candidates. That would cause issues. I guess it is a by-election. Things have been righted and I applaud that.

You do have to have a good attitude, especially when you have a bigger council, because there is a lot of push and pull about what areas you look after. In the case of the Coorong council, there is a lot of push around Tailem Bend, and Wellington East is a very big community on the eastern side of the River Murray. I think it is the second biggest community in the Coorong council. Whether it is elected members or whether it is the administration, they have to be cognisant of what everyone wants.

For a long time, even when this came up for discussion on the radio this week, it did seem that roads, rates and rubbish were the main things councils looked after, but councils look after a lot of other things. Some people would say there is duplication with state services, some would say there is duplication with federal issues and some would say there is duplication with international issues.

The people on the ground paying their rates, which are going up every year, want to see action on the ground. They want to see their libraries work, they want to see their roads graded and they want to see their rubbish picked up. We now have the three bin service in Coorong council, and my back road, Parkin Hall Road, is on the run for the three bin system. I only use the recycling bin and the rubbish bin, and it is a very handy service to have. It will be very interesting to see how these council elections go.

Furthering the debate around the bill in question, I really question the Malinauskas Labor government putting its will onto the local people who did not know this was coming. The councillors did not know this was coming and the mayors did not know this was coming.

When I was elected in 2006, the former member for Croydon, the former Attorney-General, the former Speaker, Michael Atkinson, on budget day (which was in September that year because it was an election year) announced on the front page of The Advertiser that Murray Bridge was going to host the new men's prison and the new women's prison—two prisons to be built there and a $550 million project.

Again, as the new local member, I had not been advised, the mayor had not been advised and no-one in the system had been advised. What happened after that was that there were public meetings and there were protests. The Public Service Association was involved. The prison officers rebelled because they wanted to stay working where they were. Obviously, we have a medium-security prison in Mobilong but, as far as the men's prison goes, this would have been the Yatala replacement. Well, long story short, it all fell over.

It was a very interesting time because on one side I could see the benefits of the employment, because I see the benefits of the employment that Mobilong brings, the prison there at the moment, but people were concerned about where the prerelease was going to happen and what families may move into the district. There were a whole lot of problems, and in the end, because it had come from a level of no consultation, it fell over. I gave many speeches on it. I could see the benefits but, because of the way it was rough shod over the community, I could see the many reasons why it should not happen, and that is why it did not happen in the end.

Certainly, with regard to communities—and probably more so the far-flung communities of our state, including the communities of the West Coast, with over 700 kilometres to get to Port Lincoln in the good member for Flinders' seat, or around 440 kilometres to go down to Mount Gambier—the good people of those far-flung regional areas do not like being told what to do by anyone. That is why you will sometimes see some interesting electoral results and sometimes other decisions made, but they certainly do not like being dictated to. They are a long way from the hustle and bustle of the city. They have a great place to live, work and play, and they do not want to be told what to do.

To me, this has landed at their feet out of the blue. We have had an eight-week break from the parliament—and we have had plenty else to do, mind you—yet there has not been any consultation over the eight weeks that this was coming and, all of a sudden, the Premier has thrust this into the limelight this week. It has to be barrelled through this house, going beyond the normal conventions of giving us a couple of weeks to look at the legislation, form a proper opinion and get some feedback from stakeholders. In the end, we have had to rush it.

I commend a shadow, the member for Flinders, for the rushed work he has done and the brief consultations he has had a chance to do, and I thank the rest of the team for getting organised for this debate. In winding up these comments, you have to be careful what you wish for, especially when you deal with the far-flung communities of this state. If this proposal to have a plebiscite does get up, I think a lot of people will vote it down on that basis because they will feel they have been dictated to. We will have quite a few questions on this, and I look forward to the debate.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Treasurer) (17:06): I rise to speak on the Plebiscite (South East Council Amalgamation) Bill, obviously in support of the bill. I must say that I am surprised that the opposition has been so quick to take the opportunity to oppose the bill, to complain about the fact of the existence of the bill and to complain about the way in which the bill has been brought about.

I am the first to admit, as has the minister, as has the Premier, that we have sought to bring this bill on quickly to give as much notice and time for the process not just to be organised and executed to allow the people of the South-East to have their say but also to enable as much time as possible after the winter recess for people to consider their position, particularly those who have the opportunity to cast their vote in the plebiscite.

I do not blame the member for Flinders for this because he was not around in the last session of parliament, but for those who were to complain about a bill being brought on swiftly without being briefed with a week's or several weeks' notice I find extraordinary. It was almost the custom and practice of the previous government, particularly some ministers within that government, to not even confirm to the previous Labor opposition whether a particular bill was going to be introduced in the coming sitting week but only offer a briefing sometimes on the day that the bill was being introduced and, no, that was not exclusively with regard to COVID legislation. Sometimes it was, yes, absolutely, but it was not exclusively the case.

The first thing I would say is spare us the crocodile tears about process because it is not like we have dropped War and Peace before the parliament. This is a brief bill, readily understood.

Mr Telfer interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Well, at least, by some it is readily understood. Of course, we look forward to the committee process and are happy to provide answers about the contents and the intention of the bill. The moaning from those opposite about their inability to adequately consider their position on the bill before it is brought on for consideration, I find a little rich. All the bill does is provide those people in the South-East with the opportunity to have their say.

Contrary to some of the remarks we have just had from the member for Hammond and also from the member for Flinders, no-one is being told what to do; rather, they are being asked what they want. You could not think of a more polar opposite intention and outcome from this bill from what is being alleged by those opposite. Rather than engage in some of the more, I find, strange personal attacks on the minister we saw from the member for Flinders, including, 'If you don't like how the councils down there operate, go to the Treasurer and ask for more money'—what? It is just remarkable. It is absolutely remarkable.

Mr Telfer interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Flinders!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am more than happy to hear your point of order, or if you have a matter of privilege that you want to put before the house, stand up and I will relinquish the call. But until that happens, I will keep going because I thought it was a hollow interjection. It is just remarkable that rather than provide some considered thought and debate on the contents of what has been put before us, we get these slights and we get these personal reflections on the minister.

The Minister for Local Government is of course well within his purview to be providing a segment of the community with the opportunity to have their say about the construct of local government that affects them in their local area. Contrary to what the member for Flinders says, there are not too many 'doughnut arrangements' of major regional centres occurring around South Australia, and that is why this one is indeed unique.

I cannot think of too many other major regional centres (in fact, the second largest city in the state) surrounded by a regional council, let alone having that regional council surrounding the major regional centre have such infrastructure that it is responsible for like an airport, for example—not a common circumstance and something that has been topical for the community of the South-East for some time.

I am not sure who the member for Flinders consulted when he conducted his consultations as he told us previously. I see that the member for Barker in the federal parliament has come out and complained about this, which I have to say for the rest of us should be a big endorsement. If the member for Barker does not want it, you usually think that it is probably a good thing for the rest of the community. Maybe it was someone else, but if it was Tony Pasin complaining about it, well, that usually swings the needle in favour of the proposition.

Rather than the assertion of people being dictated to by the government, of having something foisted on them, it has been made absolutely clear both in the bill and in the explanation that has been given by the minister and the Premier that that is the last thing that is happening. They are given every opportunity to have their say and, if their say is overwhelmingly or even by majority that this is not to proceed, then it will not. So the whip hand is not held by a government: it is held by the community. That is not being dictated to. The member for Flinders can shake his head all he likes, but that is the proposition that is before us.

Really, the issue now is: what do the member for Flinders and his colleagues think about this? Do they think that the people of the South-East deserve the opportunity to have their say or not? If their view is that the people of the South-East do not deserve the opportunity to have their say, by all means oppose the bill. It is not a lengthy bill. You cannot misconstrue it by saying, 'Well, part 1 is different from part 3', or, 'Part 4 is different from part 6.' It is a succinct bill that only seeks to give the people of the South-East their say.

This is the test for those opposite: do you have confidence in the people of the South-East or do you not? Do you think they deserve the opportunity to have their voice heard or do you not? I have to say that the contributions to the debate so far seem to be that they do not think the people of the South-East deserve to have their say.

On the same day that we have had a debate in this place about recognising regional communities, I have to say it does not look like the current Liberal opposition is listening to regional communities or is prepared in the future to allow them to be heard. From yesterday, when this was announced, Tuesday 6 September, through to the date that is nominated in this bill, 10 November, is some 66 days. That is plenty of time for people on either side of the debate to have their say, to try to persuade people who live in the South-East that their view is the right view and that the opposing view is the wrong view as it should operate and, even better, happening in parallel with a local government election.

What better environment to have this issue fleshed out than when community interest is already heightened, if not at its peak, about how local government can best represent a constituency. That is all we have done here today. I think it is pretty clear: you either back this bill and recognise that the people of the South-East deserve their say, or you can take what appears to be the view of those opposite that the people of the South-East do not deserve to be heard.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you might make your own reflection on whether you think that sort of approach from the South Australian Liberal Party is closely aligned with the South Australian Liberal Party's electoral success in Mount Gambier, for example. You might form your own judgements about that. Those people are not worth listening to, and so how do those people vote? Well, not for the South Australian Liberal Party. That might be your conclusion. I have to say that it is starting to become mine. If that is—

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: To the member for Morialta, who I think is seeking to school me on electoral results, I am happy to have that discussion about Mount Gambier, about his seat or about a whole range of other seats, because I think that the people of South Australia like to think that their elected representatives are interested in what they have to say, are interested in what their concerns are, are interested in a genuine opportunity to be heard and see whether the structures of government can better reflect their needs and whether there are opportunities for improvements or whether there are not.

Do you know what? Maybe they will say that there is not a better opportunity and that the current arrangement should stand; if they say that, fine. But do you know what? At least they have been given the opportunity to have that voice heard—

Mr Telfer: Why stop there? Give it to everyone.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: If that does not sit so comfortably with the member for Flinders, or if his interjection is correct, 'Why stop there? Let's give it to everyone,' we are back to 1995 in the member for Flinders' view where the card table is now to be tipped over and it is on for young and old when it comes to councils and reformation and amalgamation. If the former head of the Local Government Association thinks the time is ripe for consolidation of councils, well, let him make the case, because that is his interjection: 'Why stop there?' I think they are the words that he used, 'Why stop there?' In that case, he has another choice: it is either to oppose this or to amend it.

If he wants to see the people of Eyre Peninsula, for example, given the opportunity to get rid of, say, the Tumby Bay District Council, that seems to be of interest to the member for Flinders. How quickly one forgets, it seems. How quickly one forgets. We are open to that. I am sure the learned member for Hammond will instruct the member for Flinders how best to contact parliamentary counsel and get them working on amendments posthaste.

So now the challenge for the member for Flinders and his colleagues is: do you think that the people of the South-East deserve to have a voice and have it listened to on this issue or not? Or if there is a new contention from the member for Flinders that 'Why stop here? This needs to be done across the entire state', we look forward to seeing those amendments.

I have to say that I was not expecting this to be such a fruity debate, but I am glad that the member for Flinders has brought the allspice because it sounds like we might be hearing a new policy position on local government reform from those opposite. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:21): I enjoy the speeches of the member for Lee. They are a delightful pantomime that never ceases to entertain.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Vaudeville and pantomime, they are both separate forms of art. I am sure the member for Lee is deeply familiar with them both. I have to say there were some what you would call—I am sure the member for Lee from his high school debating would remember the technical term—straw man arguments: the idea that you characterise your opponent's views in a certain way and then describe them as bad people for maintaining a question mark over a proposition that indeed the member for Lee had not heard of, if we are to believe, until about 13 days ago. The idea that the member for Lee puts forward in a range of points in his pantomime, or his vaudeville as he prefers to characterise himself, is indeed problematic.

I think that it is worth pausing for a moment and addressing some of the points he makes. The member for Lee asks the house to spare him the crocodile tears from people concerned about process. He said those words, 'Spare us the crocodile tears regarding process.' I remind the member for Lee and the house that the opposition has not even sought today to block the suspension of standing orders to allow this debate to happen.

In the previous term of parliament on those occasions, which I would characterise as the exception or rare, where there was a bill that was necessary to be moved quickly, there was firstly invariably an excuse, a reason, a cause for why there had been some urgency to the matter. Secondly, the immediate response of the Labor Party, when such a proposition was put forward, with the exception of certain measures in relation to COVID-19, was crocodile tears. It was screams of outrage from the member for Lee and the member for West Torrens and indeed many others that it was the worst contravention of human rights since the Great Reform Act of the 19th century had been passed.

I remember the member for West Torrens saying in the last term of parliament—I have just grabbed the quote—not even in relation specifically to the suspension of standing orders but a contravention of the practice of a bill laying on the table for 10 days to enable consultation, that:

The reason we have this practice and procedure in this parliament is that we are able to read that legislation, understand it, go away and consult on the legislation, talk to stakeholders about that legislation, get advice on potential amendments we may or may not wish to move and be briefed by the government on the intent of the legislation. That is the way the normal practice of reform occurs in this parliament and it has for decades.

I am not weeping crocodile tears, I am just concerned about hypocrisy and, presented by those opposite, the gnashing of teeth, the wailing, the moaning and indeed the crocodile tears that we heard for four years when there was an occasional removal from the standard practices of the place.

We have had the response this year of irregularity, of nonstandard practice, to the point where if you look on the Notice Paper—the government business program that is currently on the interwebs on the parliament's website—listed for today is the Criminal Law Consolidation (Human Remains) Amendment Bill continuation and completion of debate.

I am not arguing. We did not seek to oppose the suspension of standing orders. When the notice of government business was presented to us at 4.40pm on Friday last and it contained an amendment to the standing orders, which we dealt with yesterday, the Russian assets bill, the human remains bill and the national energy laws bill—and nothing else—we certainly turned up this week prepared to debate those.

The government gave us a new agenda for this week at 12.04 on Monday, which added extra bills. It added the shopping centre parking areas bill and noted the government's identification (and we are grateful for the identification) of a time for the maiden speech, which was also provided last week. They also added the national energy laws and the electric vehicle levy bill. That was fine. We remain prepared to debate those bills. They have been on the Notice Paper for some time and the opposition has positions. We have speakers ready to go. Until today, and indeed yesterday, there were verbal updates that this debate would happen and we appreciate that verbal update. It is helpful to know that and it in informs us when considering opposing the suspension of standing orders.

However, today at 11.44 the next iteration of the weekly program came out, adding in the motion from the Minister for Sport, which was initially introduced as a private member's motion but then became government business. It includes tomorrow the defaulting council bill, which I think the member introduced a couple of hours ago, and indeed this bill that we are debating now.

The point I make is that the government, over the course of the last five months and a couple of weeks, has not just done this in exceptional circumstances but they are making it a regularity of practice. I am not weeping crocodile tears. We did not oppose the amendment. We are not going to seek to do as the member for West Torrens did and the member for Lee did and the member for Kaurna did on so many bills during the last term of parliament, to give 15-minute speeches at every opportunity, three times a clause throughout the entirety of a bill. The filibuster is not what is going on here.

We are making some observations on a bill that we got yesterday and I am not sure that members of the Labor party room got it any earlier—certainly not before caucus yesterday morning. The media says it was decided at the Show on Monday night. The member for Lee said in his speech that the timing and the urgency of this debate was partly to give people in the South-East as much opportunity as possible to consider the proposition prior to voting on it. He said that there were 60-something days, nearly 10 weeks, for them to do so from it being announced earlier this week until they are asked to vote.

Of course, it would have given them more time to consider the proposition, and it would have given council more time to give advice on the proposition, had the government identified this bill of such important priority that it takes precedence over every other bill of the house, all of the other ones that they have listed. It takes precedence over private parking, which the Premier talked about in question time today. It takes precedence over everything else. It is so important that the government did not think it was worth giving them more than 66 days' notice by letting them know earlier in the year. I have some questions that we will get to in the committee stage.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Morialta, I have been very patient. We have a question before us. The content in your debate is more for suspension, whether to suspend or not, which I appreciate. I am happy to give you some latitude, but I would ask you to get to the substance of the bill itself. That is what we are doing. We are debating the second reading.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I appreciate your counsel, sir. I identify that I have been cautious to say that, far from talking about the suspension, we did not oppose the suspension. I am talking about the merits of this bill and the decisions that will inform people putting a view on this bill today. It may well be that the government chooses to adjourn the bill, having considered the fact that some consultation with communities and councils about amendments to the bill may or may not be of merit. I suspect the government will not because that is not the way the Labor caucus operates.

I also identify that the entirety of my speech has largely been reflective of the member for Lee's speech, and I did not notice any attempt from the opposition to stymie his opportunity to do so. We were enjoying his 'vaudeville', as he describes it.

The member for Lee said that this bill is important now to give people as much time as possible to inform a vote. My view is that considering it for another 10 days would also do so, but the Legislative Council will form their own view on that, and I am sure that each of them will be reading Hansard intently. The member for Lee said that it was almost the custom and practice under the previous government to not even confirm to the opposition whether a particular bill was to be introduced ahead of a given sitting week, providing briefings and so forth. Again, I do not think that was correct. I think it is far more apt a description of this government's approach—not in every aspect.

As I was saying, we have some questions that there will be the opportunity to ask in the committee stage should the government proceed through the second reading this afternoon. I will give the member for Stuart a heads up on what some of these questions are.

This bill purports to be about a plebiscite—it is even in the title—yet we are talking about providing ballot papers to go out with the local government election. Traditionally, a plebiscite, its identification and purpose, is to get everyone voting. Is it a plebiscite when we have voluntary voting and a limited number of people return? Is the government looking for an absolute majority of constituents, residents in the subject areas, or is the government looking for a majority only of those who choose to vote? Is an absent vote or somebody who chooses not to vote in their local government elections at this time a no vote, or is it just removed from the process whatsoever?

Some do not feel moved to vote in council elections, and this is not an unusual experience in South Australian council elections. Sir, I am sure you will recall some councils have very good turnouts. I have no doubt yours did, too, when they were drawn to vote for you, sir, and I am sure that they fell away dramatically when you were no longer on the ballot paper. It is possible that not every council has that level of turnout and that there will be different levels of turnout.

Can I ask the minister to reflect on the question of whether the boundaries adjustment commission will, after this plebiscite that is being interposed in the process, then undertake the other community consultation that the act requires them to do when considering council alignments, adjustments and amalgamations.

We have proposed boundary adjustments in my electorate of Morialta. The Campbelltown council and the Adelaide Hills Council have been discussing this for several years. I have a number of residents in the Hills part of Rostrevor, in the older parts of Woodforde that have been there for some time and the new development at Woodforde for whom this is a very live issue and they have very strong feelings about this, and they look forward to that community consultation should an investigation take place, which may happen early next year.

That community consultation which is to happen, according to the current legislation, and which is happening in relation to any other boundary adjustments that are underway, is in my view the most important part of the process because it is the first time after years of discussion when there is a formal process for those members of the community to have their voices heard. I hope that the boundaries commission will put a very heavy stake on that community consultation.

I do not consider it my job as the MP to tell members of the community which way they should inform the commission of their views. They are well in their rights, and they are certainly more than capable of presenting that case to the commission themselves. I know they will, and I will pass on to the commission the feedback from those who have chosen to give it to me in the form that it comes in.

That consultation is what happens in any council area. When the member for Lee says that in voting against this bill or in not supporting this bill anyone is therefore not wanting people to have their say, I make the point that by my reading of this bill, were it to pass and were a plebiscite to be supported by a local community, it would only then trigger the investigation where there would be another round of community consultation, which would also inform the process as to whether a boundary amalgamation is to emerge.

To my knowledge, the legislation as it operates has not gone through the process of the community consultation in one of these before. To my memory, the legislation was reformed in 2017, or possibly 2016, and the ones in Gawler and Campbelltown are possibly going to be the first cases where it gets to the community consultation phase. To my mind, it is tremendously important that that community consultation is done extremely well and seriously and that it takes into account the views of residents and electors.

This process, which abbreviates all the leading points to whether or not an investigation happens and which is proposed for this council area alone by the Minister for Local Government and the government, poses some serious questions to that subsequent community consultation process: firstly, whether the government proposes to have it leapfrog in front of other community consultations that may need to be run and, secondly, whether or not that community consultation will be taken seriously.

It will be a difficult proposition for the boundaries commission to undertake an investigation, to do all the research work into the details of how local government reform in this case will play out. Having had a plebiscite that says yes—should it do so—the commission will then have to do the investigation, presumably funded by the government, and part of that has to be community consultation. That second community consultation will need to be informed by all the information that has come in through the actual investigation itself.

The challenges after Brexit come to mind. If you have a plebiscite that is non-binding but that raises expectations to the level where it is almost impossible for the subsequent investigatory work to come up with an accepted different proposition, then that is a very serious problem. I do not know if this is something that formed part of the discussion in cabinet or caucus before the Labor Party proposed to bring this on urgently. It is the sort of thing that Labor members may have reflected on had the bill been introduced and given 10 days on the table; instead, the government proposes to deal with this all today.

I encourage them to reflect on that consideration, to give some serious questioning to laying out the process, It strikes me that the simple bill, as the member for Lee identified, might possibly have some unintended consequences. As Labor members reflect on that, it really bears the house's consideration: what effect does this bill have on the local government elections in Grant and Mount Gambier? It may be none, but I would be stunned if there were not some people with a point of view who might like to furnish our colleagues in the Legislative Council with that point of view in the coming days.

As I understand it, there are to be separate plebiscites in Grant and Mount Gambier. What is the effect if one council area votes no and the residents in the other council area vote yes? Voluntary voting means that it is not a majority of people in any case, but if a majority of those who vote across the two combined councils were to be more in favour than against what is the government going to do with that piece of information? What is the boundaries commission going to do with that piece of information?

I feel as if the Minister for Local Government has been sold a bit of a pup by the government. We do not know the circumstances of how this bill came to pass. It is hard to imagine it came up from even those in the community of Mount Gambier who have been talking about potential amalgamations because, according to information in the public domain today, it blindsided heads of local government in the area.

It is my view that the Premier has sought to rush this legislation through the parliament without proper consultation. It is my view that the Premier and the government have not explained where this idea came from, why there was no consultation and why members of parliament have now been denied the opportunity to seek information and to consult with residents and stakeholders. I trust, I expect, that members of the Legislative Council will be given that opportunity, and I am pleased about that.

The Premier has not explained why he did not tell the mayors of the councils in the South-East why he wants them to merge ahead of going through with this. It is a reckless blindside on those councils and on the parliament.

As I said, my time is approaching an end, and I do not propose to go on at great length during the committee stage, as some members opposite—not the minister—did during the last term. We have some questions, and I have even foreshadowed some to the minister. He can reflect on some of them in the second reading reply, which will abbreviate some time. We will go through the committee stage; we are not going to seek to draw it out any longer than is necessary for the parliament's duty.

The opposition in seeking to, not as the member for Lee said oppose the bill, instead reserve our right on the bill for some of that consideration to take place, it may well be that there are answers to these questions that are posed, and indeed in the Legislative Council we will certainly be putting forward with our votes a strong position that is reflective of the wants, the needs, the desires of people in the South-East and around the state.

I think that the straw man argument constructed by the member for Lee, that not forming a position in the house is a bit asinine, to be true, given that the bill arrived to us a day ago. I do not think the minister would characterise it in the way the member for Lee did because the minister does not resort to vaudeville or pantomime or whatever else the member for Lee would like to characterise his speeches in. But I do think that by going through this process in the way that it has, the minister is mistaken.

Nevertheless, I am sure the bill will go through the house. We are aware of the numbers in the house. I look forward to some answers to questions. I look forward to further consultation with communities and stakeholders ahead of the Legislative Council's consideration of the same.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK (Stuart—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Roads, Minister for Veterans Affairs) (17:40): First-up, let me thank every member in this house for their contribution. I know that there are different views on this, but let's just go back. The discussion started, as has been in the media and a press release, from a country cabinet earlier this year with the new government. Unfortunately, I was not there because I had COVID, but this is the information I have.

I want to thank the member for Flinders for his very passionate discussion and debate on this. I look forward to the questions in committee. The member for Heysen absolutely had some good points. The member for Mount Gambier is the one we should be looking towards. He is the member who has to answer to his community and he is getting this information from there. Also, I thank the member for Light and the member for Hammond for their contributions, and I thank the member for Lee and the member for Morialta.

This is not telling people what to do. This is asking people what their thoughts are. We will go through this in the committee stage. Personally, I think this is democracy. Too often we see lots of legislation come through and things happening in parliaments across Australia. Sometimes the people themselves do not have an opportunity. In this case here, we are only asking people whether they support the further investigation of amalgamation.

The council elections are coming up and I know that there are quite a few councils that do not have the number of candidates to fulfill those particular positions in the election. There are also a couple of positions for mayor that are not going to be fulfilled, so we have to go out for supplementary elections. I have always had a concern about the lack of local government elections, the number of people coming outside voting for this.

I would encourage the residents of both Grant and Mount Gambier to come out in force and express their concerns and views on whether this should go to the next stage. If it comes back and it is in the positive, then in fact as the member for Mount Gambier indicated it will go to the next stage with the boundaries commission. They have an independent process to go through. Also, if the communities of Grant and Mount Gambier come back and this is negative, this is not in support, then I have made it quite clear: this is not going to go any further.

A couple of members have indicated we should have more time to go to the councils. I do not believe councils themselves should make that decision because councils themselves, and we have all been in those positions, sometimes do not want to lose anything at all. I am asking people through this bill if they want to go to the next stage of looking at the opportunity to investigate it—only to investigate it.

It has been brought up here about the bill being rushed. I can remember very clearly in the last parliament that there were some bills rushed because of COVID.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: Name them.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I do not have those, member for Unley, but—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: No—and there were also many bills that were guillotined by the previous Attorney in this house.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The members on my left will have a chance to speak.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Irrespective, there were some bills that were guillotined and so therefore that stifled the debate. I have some concerns about the outcome of concessions with council elections and I hope this encourages those people. We only have to look at the nominations across all regional South Australia. In particular, there are a lot of areas on the West Coast that do not have nominations for those particular vacancies.

Will this have any impact on local government elections? I think it will. I think it will encourage people to come out and voice their concerns. Also, it will not only give an opportunity for people to actually come out not only to say whether they want to investigate the potential to go further with this but it may give the opportunity for some of the elected members or candidates to get a far better turnout by their community.

At the end of the day, we have this before us. I am looking forward to the committee stage. I am happy to take members' contributions on board. I am looking forward to the shadow minister and members asking questions in the committee stage. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr TELFER: Has the minister sought advice as to the cost for a plebiscite process from ECSA, run separately from the local government elections?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am advised that the Electoral Commission of South Australia has advised that it would be in the vicinity of $75,000.

Mr TELFER: Total?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: In total.

Mr TELFER: Did the minister consult directly with the leadership of the two councils involved before making an announcement?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am advised that should be a question for the Premier. I made attempts to contact both councils once the bill was introduced into the house. I could not do anything before, as you would understand. I then spoke to the LGA and also the president of the LGA.

Mr TELFER: For clarification, the question was: did the minister consult directly with the leadership of the two councils involved before making an announcement? Just a yes or no is fine.

The CHAIR: I think the minister answered that.

Mr TELFER: No, he did not.

The CHAIR: I heard him. Minister?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: As I said, I made the attempt to contact the two mayors. I personally contacted them—I could not get hold of one—once the bill was introduced into the parliament. I could not make any comments until such time it was introduced into the parliament.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Just reflecting on the minister's answer to the first question in relation to the cost of the plebiscite outside of elections, can the minister confirm the cost of doing the plebiscite in the way proposed?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I have been advised that for the plebiscite to be done with the Electoral Commission outside is about $25,000 as part of the election process as we are proposing to go through, with the ballot papers going out.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Can I ask a question of clarification. Perhaps the minister could combine the two because I am not sure. What he just said, that I heard, was that it was $25,000 to do it outside the process. I am not sure if the minister meant inside the process. Is he saying that it is $75,000 if we were to do this in 12 months' time but $25,000 if he is to do it at the end of this year? Is that what the minister is saying?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I have been advised that if it is part of the local government election process it is in the vicinity of $25,000. I have also been advised that if it is separate in, say, 12 months' or whatever it may be, it could be in the vicinity of $70,000 to $75,000.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: To be very clear, the cost benefit to the South Australian people of going through this abbreviated process is $45,000 to potentially $50,000. That is the outcome of the bill. It will save $50,000 rather than having it on another occasion.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: That is not the only reason. If we do it with the local government elections at the moment, we have up to, I think, 10 November for people to return their plebiscite papers with the ballot papers, etc. It is in the vicinity of $25,000. If we go on a separate process, it is about $70,000 to $75,000, in that vicinity. But the other thing is that this is more simple for the voters of Grant and Mount Gambier to have their say at the same time as they have the opportunity to elect their next candidates—mayors, etc.—for the next four years.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Has the minister been advised on any costs or other circumstances relating to the elections in Grant and Mount Gambier at this year's council elections that will be impacted should this legislation pass? I am specifically referring to things like whether the anticipated cost of running the council election as part of this process is to be impacted by having a different approach, whether there is an education campaign addressing the council question. I am thinking of a question that many people living in those council areas will be asking: 'If we vote yes to this, then does that make our ballot papers for the Grant council or the Mount Gambier council redundant?'

Is the minister proposing to have an education campaign to ensure that people know that this plebiscite does not have any binding impact and may not lead to any outcome in particular, so they have to or, indeed, they do not have to, but they should consider filling out their other forms? What consideration has been given to the nature of the local government campaign in Grant and Mount Gambier that will be different should this legislation pass and are there any potential costs that have been identified associated with that?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am advised that, if this bill passes, the plebiscite itself will include a brief overview of the question to assist voters to determine how they wish to vote. This will also provide a link to the Office of Local Government website that will include more information to assist voters, including questions. This will be available as soon as the bill passes, if it does pass. Certainly, this is only an indication to whether we proceed. The communities of both Grant and Mount Gambier want to investigate the opportunities going forward because then that has to go to the boundaries commission and so forth.

Mr TELFER: For clarification on that, are there going to be any additional documentations included with the voting pack that gets sent out to individual voters? For instance, in the local government elections there is the voting slip and there is also information on the individual candidates. Is there going to be any additional paperwork included with the very simple, apparently, proposition that has been put in the legislation?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I thank the member for his question. I have been advised that the information will be out there. On the piece of paper, on one side will be the question: do you support, or are you in favour, of further investigation? It will also be in a different colour to the ballot papers. The electors themselves have the opportunity to return both the ballot paper and the plebiscite slip of paper, or they could return the plebiscite paper without the ballot paper. So they have the opportunity. They could send one back, both or neither.

Mr PEDERICK: For some clarity around the process, minister, if a yes vote does get up, I know it is a little bit hypothetical, but I think it is something vital that we need to know. You have already identified that there are issues. There are going to be extra elections now, supplementary elections, because some spots have not been filled in councils across the state.

What work has been done in the modelling of where this plebiscite goes for a yes vote? Does it mean that the voting that happens for both the Mount Gambier council and the Grant council becomes redundant because there will be a supplementary election, or is a yes vote only going to impact, if it all goes through the processes, on four years' time? The main thing is to get clarity for the people in the community on whether this annuls whatever vote happens this time and then it goes to the supercouncil of the South-East, if you get what I mean.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I thank the member for his question. This plebiscite is if the majority are in favour of the further investigation. As for whoever is elected in November this year, it will not have any impact on them. I am advised that they will continue to be the elected members for those two councils. The boundaries commission will then have more consultation, more communication and things like that.

I know the member for Mount Gambier does not want this rushed. We are not going to get an answer from the plebiscite until November, and then it has to be collated back in. The elected members, whoever they may be, are then identified and elected. At that stage, the results from the plebiscite will be analysed, and then the decision will be made. If we refer it to the boundaries reform commission, they may not take it any further either.

Mr PEDERICK: I still do not have full clarity. From what I am picking up, it could mean a supplementary election if it goes through those processes, the boundary commission process and all of that. The simple question I ask is: whatever happens, do the elected members of the two councils, Mount Gambier and Grant, stand for four years or, if this gets up, will there be a supplementary election?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Thank you to the member. There are a lot of ifs here. If it comes back positive and it goes to the electoral boundaries commission, they will analyse that, then they will come back and make the decision about which way it goes from there. That is what I am advised. The other thing is that, as I said, this is not going to be rushed. The member for Mount Gambier does not want us to rush, but we need to get it in there so that the people have the opportunity to vote in the local government election in November this year.

Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 19:30.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Minister, I understand this bill is going to end up with an application to the Local Government Boundaries Commission. Are you able to advise the house on how many applications there have been for boundary changes over the last 10 years and how many of those have been successful over that period?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order: I do not think the question has any relevance to the clause in question.

The CHAIR: I tend to agree. Member, would you like to find a new question?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Sorry, but it is very relevant. This is a referendum about consulting, about sending the merger of the Grant council and the Mount Gambier council off to the Local Government Boundaries Commission for review.

The CHAIR: No, that is not correct. It certainly does not cover clause 1 and I have been quite—

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It is the title of the bill. It is what the bill is all about.

The CHAIR: The member for Unley will resume his seat. The bill is quite clear in its limitations. They have been raised by members already. That question, in my view, is not relevant. I am happy for you to ask other questions relevant to the bill and also relevant to that clause. If you do not have any more questions on that clause, I am happy to move to clause 2.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Has the minister been briefed on what the voter turnout is expected to be for the plebiscite and whether it will be different from the plebiscite for the local government elections?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Certainly, I am not a magician and if I could predict how many people are going to turn out to vote, I would get my X-Lotto numbers in tomorrow. No, I have no idea. It is up to the people who come out and vote because, as you all know, voting is not compulsory. It is voluntary and we need to promote that as much as we can. So, no, I have no idea and I do not think anyone else has either.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Have there been occasions previously when there have been plebiscites that have been addressed at the same time as local government elections which you can refer to for historical advice?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I thank the member for his question. I do not have that information. I have not heard of that, but certainly I am prepared to take that on notice. This is very rare, I have been advised, but certainly if there is anything like that, I am happy to come back to the house.

Mr TEAGUE: Perhaps, minister, to ask it a slightly different way—and this is a matter that got some air time in the course of the second reading debate, both in the course of remarks that I was foreshadowing and in the contribution of the member for Mount Gambier—insofar as the bill provides for a plebiscite that is going to feed into potentially a part 2 process, does it envisage any particular form of initiation of that part 2 process? Is the minister able to give an indication at all about what form of part 2 initiation is envisaged here?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am advised that the bill itself does not lead to going to the boundaries reform commission. This is the short title we are talking about still. I am advised that the bill itself does not actually say that the bill will be referred to the boundaries reform commission.

Mr TELFER: There is a lot of detail we need to get our heads around. The title of the bill is Plebiscite (South East Council Amalgamation) Bill 2022. The Collins Dictionary definition of 'plebiscite' is a vote of all members of a country or region in which they say whether they agree or disagree with a particular policy. I highlight 'all members of a region'. It really comes down to how is it a plebiscite by definition when voting is not compulsory? Thus, if a number of people do not participate but are eligible to participate in a vote, is a value put on an absent vote? Is it a yes or a no, or will this be something that you do not take into account?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am advised that, if the bill is passed, it will be run as a poll under the Local Government Act.

Mr TELFER: The Local Government (Elections) Act? Should I be considering an amendment to change the name of this bill to the poll act 2022 or the survey act to more properly define exactly what the parameters are?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am advised that the way this will be run is if you look further down under clause 2, Plebiscites, where subclause 3 states:

(3) Subject to the modifications and exclusions specified in Schedule 1…

(a) the Local Government (Elections) Act 1999 (including regulations made under the Act)…

That is referring to how it will be run.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Mr TELFER: Is there a definition within the Local Government (Elections) Act 1999 for a plebiscite?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I thank the member for that. This is a standalone bill. I am advised that it will be run down exactly as it is under section 3(a) under the Local Government (Elections) Act. This is a standalone bill; that is what defines the plebiscite.

Mr TELFER: Minister, is there a threshold for a percentage of the vote which must come in to provide enough direction, given that local government elections are not compulsory? Is there an expectation from you, as the minister, of what would be a legitimate percentage of the vote coming in to garner a proper perspective on what you believe the good people of Mount Gambier or the District Council of Grant want?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: No. Election voting is not compulsory, so therefore I cannot—sorry, just repeat the question again.

Mr TELFER: My question was: is there an expectation from you, as minister, that the results of the plebiscite will need to get to a certain threshold of a percentage of vote—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Are you saying it is invalid if it is not at a certain threshold?

Mr TELFER: No, I am asking because there is not the detail within—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: But if the council only gets a 30 per cent turnout, is it valid or invalid?

Mr TELFER: I am asking you, minister, is there a threshold for your plebiscite that you believe would give enough of a robust answer? This comes back down to the percentage of vote which is remaining, the ones who have not voted. Are they going to be given a value, yes or no?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: There is no single result, no single number, that will automatically result in any action. The government will carefully consider the results of the plebiscite. It will consider how voters across both councils voted, how voters in each council voted and, in the case of the District Council of Grant, how voters in each of the three wards voted. It will consider the voter turnout across both councils, in each council and, in the case of the District Council of Grant, in each of its three wards.

Mr TELFER: To follow on from that, minister, is there any work which can be done or any expectation which can be articulated to the good people of Grant and Mount Gambier through the process, which would give them more certainty as to what the result of the process might be? I am trying to understand if there is going to be a separation between the results coming in from the District Council of Grant, which obviously is a smaller population, versus the results coming in from the City of Mount Gambier council—whether they are going to be accumulated together for a direction or whether they are going to be looked at in their entirety as individual councils.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I just want to repeat: there is no single result, no single number, that will automatically result in this action. The government will carefully consider the results of the plebiscite, including how voters turn out and across and in both councils voted, how voters in each council voted and, in the case of the District Council of Grant, how voters in each of the three wards voted. There are three wards there; we will take that into account.

But as to voter turnout across both councils and in each council and, in the case of the District Council of Grant, in each of the three wards, I am, as you would be—you are an ex-mayor; you were President of the Local Government Association—disappointed with the turnout in local government elections, full stop. What we have to do, all of us, is encourage people to actually get out there and vote, because it is not compulsory. I do not want to make it compulsory.

We need to encourage local members of parliament in each of those areas to also get out. Councils get to promote it, and they are doing that. We need to try to encourage people to vote because it is not compulsory at this particular point. I have just given that answer again.

Mr TELFER: So, for clarification, the thresholds will be decided after you see the results come in from the plebiscite, as to what decision you will make in reaction to it.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I have been advised that there is no threshold. We will analyse the results when they come in, and what we will do is have a look at it. I can give you my word that that is what we will be doing. At the end of the day, let's encourage people to get out there and have a say on the opportunity to go in this next direction.

First-up, let's encourage people to vote in local council elections. I tried to encourage people to nominate and, as you know as the shadow minister and as an ex-mayor, in some areas positions have not been filled. In this house, we have to promote it out there. I will be doing the same and encouraging many people in Grant and in Mount Gambier to complete ballot papers and also the attached plebiscite, which will give the indication of whether, going forward, they want to continue in the direction of investigating the opportunity.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: This question relates to the actual question being asked: do you support the examination of the amalgamation of the District Council of Grant and the City of Mount Gambier to form a single council? Who will be doing the examination?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am advised that it is 'if'. Everything is 'if'. If it comes in as a yes, the government will then refer that to the Local Government Boundaries Commission, going forward, and the Productivity Commission. The thing is that this is an if. We do not know what the voter turnout is going to be; people may not even vote. So we have to get that information out.

This bill is giving those people an opportunity to express their views. There are two things: encouraging them to vote, because it is an issue that has an impact on the future direction of both councils, and giving them the opportunity to make the decision—not the councillors themselves and not the councils. This is to give those people their voice. What we all should be looking at is the people's voice: whatever they are concerned about and whatever their views are, whether it is in local government or in the state parliament.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Is the Local Government Boundaries Commission the only body that can actually examine applications for boundary changes for local government?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am advised that that is the formal job of the Local Government Boundaries Commission. If the Productivity Commission supports it, they will go forward from there. There is a long way to go at this particular point. We have to get the people to actually vote first—that is the first thing—and then see how it comes in from there.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: But my question is: is the Local Government Boundaries Commission the only body that is authorised, under legislation, to make changes to council boundaries?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am advised yes, but they will make the recommendations to the minister to instigate those changes.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: My question is, then: how many applications have been before the Local Government Boundaries Commission over the last 10 years? How many applications have been granted over that same period?

The CHAIR: There is a point of order. Minister, you have a point of order?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes; this is not relevant to the current clause before us.

The CHAIR: Is the minister able to answer, or do you need to take that on notice?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: No, I do not have that here. As the Minister for Infrastructure has indicated, I do not see where it relates to this clause. However, I will take it on notice and bring something back, if I can get that information.

Mr TEAGUE: Has the minister given any thought, or taken any advice prior to presenting this bill to the house, to the potential problem of one level of government effectively applying a process that coincides with a process for the election of another level of government, and the influence that might have on that electoral process? Has the commission had anything to say about that, and have you sought any assistance in that regard, insofar as any risk that one might have an influence over the other and any impact therefore on the reliability of the outcome in both cases?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: An interesting question, but quite frankly I give the voters of Grant and Mount Gambier far more credit than it appears anyone is giving them at the moment. We will go out to the people of Grant and the people of Mount Gambier. They are the people who can have the influence on which direction this next move will go—whether it goes into an investigation of a potential amalgamation or not—so let's give credit to those people. They know what they want. They are the ones who live in the area. We do not live in the area. Let them make the decision of their destiny.

Mr TEAGUE: Taking into account that response to my question, I might make it really clear that there is no shortage of credit—certainly on this side of the house—for regional electors, those who live in all corners of the state. Let's be clear about that. The point is about the probity of the process, advice that has or has not been sought by the minister in relation to what I have described as a somewhat unusual process, for better or worse.

I can understand the case that has been put is that this is an opportunity, it is a convenient opportunity. Perhaps it involves some cost saving. I do not know if it has been elucidated what that might involve, but there is a convenient opportunity to bring these two events, this novel idea, to coincide with what we know is a scheduled council process.

It also conveniently—and again it might be meritoriously, I do not know—coincides with a time at which the two councils themselves are going into a period of caretaker, so they are less engaged in the process of advocacy themselves for this particular outcome one way or the other. They are going to find themselves in a process that is not of their making.

I stress that that has absolutely nothing to do with credit or the lack thereof for either elected members—the individual councils and the leaders of the councils—or their electors. It is neither here nor there. It is a question that goes to the objective probity of the process. If you want to point to any precedents that might set South Australians' minds at rest about this, then fantastic, but the point is that where we have seen plebiscites, referenda, questions that might coincide with elections, the normal thing is that it is the same level of government putting the same question to the same voters who are voting in the same context.

This is not about making some sort of point. This is clearly an occasion on which the state is coming along and saying, for the purposes presumably of informing its own consideration of what it is entitled to do, possibly under part 2 of the act later: 'What you are going to have imposed on you is a double process on this election day.' Have you taken any advice about that? Do you have anything to say about the probity or novelty of that process? Just because the point has been made, let's not take any more cheap shots about credit for people who live in the regions.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: This is a legal procedure.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Members will not interject.

Mr Teague interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Heysen!

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Minister! The member for Heysen!

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: I will kick both of you out in a second.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: I am warning both of you. Next time you—

Mr Teague interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Heysen!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I ask him to withdraw and apologise immediately for accusing me of having the propensity to mislead the house.

Mr TEAGUE: Point of order: I will not do that, and I will cite the member's most recent misleading of the house insofar as it affected me directly. I did not take the step of proceeding to a Privileges Committee in that regard, and the minister was quick to get on his feet and withdraw and apologise in that case, but it was an egregious misleading of the house.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr TEAGUE: I accepted your withdrawal and apology and what I am now faced with is a freewheeling—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr TEAGUE: —interjection about what I have observed about your motives.

The CHAIR: Member for Heysen—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: I do not need your advice.

Mr TEAGUE: This is outrageous.

The CHAIR: Member for Heysen, can you please take your seat. I will suspend this session if this continues and report it to the Speaker, and I will ask him to name both of you if that continues. Have I made myself clear? Member for Heysen, have I made myself clear?

Mr Teague interjecting:

The CHAIR: Thank you.

Mr TEAGUE: I am in the process of addressing the point of order.

The CHAIR: Resume your seat, please. The minister will not intervene.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, sir.

The CHAIR: The next person to talk out of order, I will suspend the session. Member for Flinders, do you have a question?

Mr TELFER: I have an additional question here on clause 2. Minister, in taking into account the commentary around the process and the value of the democratic process that each of the individual councils can have, what do you suppose a vote in the negative from one council and a vote in the positive from the other council may mean for any future steps?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Through the Chair, very interesting behaviour. I will just go back to what I read before. I will be taking it that government will carefully consider the results of the plebiscite, considering how voters across both councils voted—I understand where you are coming from, member for Flinders—and, in the case of the District Council of Grant, how voters in each of the three wards voted, because some of those wards are on the periphery of the area; and the voter turnout across both councils and in each council, and in the case of the district council in each of the three wards. I cannot be any clearer than that, I do not think.

At the end of the day, we are talking about a lot of hypotheticals at this particular point. I would hope that we get a 90 per cent turnout from both councils at this particular point. I want to promote this. Whilst it is a bone of contention with some people, we are giving people a choice in their destiny, which way they want to go, for both councils, both members.

We talked about councils being in caretaker mode. At the moment, the councillors there: they are in caretaker mode. Those elected members who are currently there in caretaker mode have the opportunity to vote, as do the non-elected members as well as the candidates. Everybody who is on the electoral roll, and certain businesses that are on the electoral roll, have the opportunity to express their concerns, their views on the future direction of the South-East, of that particular area, the District Council of Grant and the City of Mount Gambier. We need to give those people an opportunity to express their views, not our views.

Mr TELFER: I certainly appreciate that. I would aim for 100 per cent voter turnout because that way there would be a lot of clarity and a lot less uncertainty about the proportion of people who came out to vote. However, even if there were 100 per cent voter turnout, there are still scenarios that I believe the good people of the District Council of Grant and the City of Mount Gambier would be uncertain about, because whether it is one of the three wards or whether it is one council or the other, there is a high likelihood they will be voting a different way to their neighbour.

Because there is not the clarity of what the outcome might be within this piece of legislation, I am trying to provide some clarity for the good people of Grant and Mount Gambier. If it is not provided in this process, I would hope it is communicated to the people what the expectations of the government are going to be depending on what the result might be; what actions might come from a yes or no. That is what I am trying to provide clarification about for the good voters in the South-East.

The CHAIR: I will take that as a statement rather than a question. The question was—

Mr TELFER: Sorry, Mr Chair—

The CHAIR: You asked a question. Are you going to ask the same question?

Mr TELFER: No, absolutely not.

The CHAIR: It was not clear to me what the question was.

Mr TELFER: I might get the same answer but I am not asking the same question, Mr Chair.

The CHAIR: So the question is?

Mr TELFER: The question is: minister, even with 100 per cent turnout, will you be providing the voters in this plebiscite with any certainty as to what the actions might be depending on a vote one way or the other?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am also hoping it will be 100 per cent, but I never see 100 per cent on anything. If there is 100 per cent turnout, people will vote one way or the other. Some people may not even vote, or they may vote in the council election but elect not to fill in the plebiscite form, which will be very separate from the voting paper; it is a different colour. It could be that they may not want to vote because they do not like any of the candidates, but they might have a view on the potential direction going forward, or to investigate the potential opportunity for amalgamation. We will take all that on board; there are a lot of scenarios there, but we will take everything on board that we can.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Will the plebiscite ballot papers be voted collectively? In other words, will the District Council of Grant and the City of Mount Gambier all be in a pile and vote collectively, or will they be voted in such a manner that you have to determine the total votes and the yes and no votes for each council?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: As per electing councillors or mayors for those two councils, in Grant there is the mayor plus the wards and they will be counted as that. The City of Mount Gambier is for a mayor and councillors, and they will be counted separately. So both will be counted individually.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I am not talking about the mayoral elections or the council elections. I am talking about the plebiscite election. Will you be in a position after the count to report to the people of the South-East how many votes there were in the District Council of Grant and in the City of Mount Gambier separately? Mount Gambier, for example, has a much bigger population than Grant. Supplementary to that, will it be a majority of the combined vote, or will it need to be a majority of voters in Grant and a majority of voters in Mount Gambier in order for the inquiry to begin?

The CHAIR: That is two questions. The minister answered the first question about whether the votes will be counted separately from each area and, secondly, if the combined votes, how you are going to respond to that. That is the member's last question as well.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: As per any normal local government elections, the votes for each will be counted separately, as will the plebiscite votes for each of the councils including the plebiscites that are coming in—to my information—from each of the wards and the same with the City of Mount Gambier. We will then publish the results, as the Electoral Commissioner would do for the ward councillors and the mayor for each of them: the District Council of Grant and also Mount Gambier.

The CHAIR: Can you just repeat the second part?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: My second question was: will the majority be a majority of the combined votes, or will the majority require a majority of the District Council of Grant and the City of Mount Gambier? Will both those local government communities require a majority for the process to begin?

The CHAIR: The minister has already answered that question.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Do you want me to reinforce it again?

The CHAIR: It is up to you, but that has been asked now two or three times. It is up to you if you want to answer it or not.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I have already answered that question.

The CHAIR: Member for Heysen, this is your third question.

Mr TEAGUE: Perhaps before I ask my third question, I was just wondering in all the excitement, now that the minister has had a bit of time to think about it, is there an answer to my first question?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: What was your first question?

Mr TEAGUE: The question I stress is in circumstances where we have had limited time to analyse the bill, so it is a matter of curiosity in relation to responsibility for a process where we are legislating here in this parliament to apply a plebiscite that will coincide with a council election. Has the minister sought advice from the commission or elsewhere in relation to any problem or otherwise that that might create in terms of the probity of either process? That was the first question. I think I have managed to repeat it faithfully enough.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I thought that in this case, in this house, we made the decisions. We are sovereign. We make the decisions here and this is a legal bill going through. If you do not want to support it, then you vote against it. There have been plebiscites going out with voting papers before. We make the decision in this chamber, and if this bill does not get passed then we do not proceed with it.

Mr TEAGUE: Perhaps moving into my third question, if I may?

The CHAIR: I will be lenient and this will be your last one.

Mr TEAGUE: Forgive me if I am catching up on this front. Given that answer, has there been any consultation or feedback sought from either of the two councils pre-caretaker or otherwise at any time and prior to the development of the process?

The CHAIR: That question was asked a bit earlier by another member.

An honourable member interjecting:

The CHAIR: Let me finish. I am happy for people to disagree, but let me finish my bit first, okay? The question was asked as to what communication the minister had had with both mayors and the CEOs of the councils prior to this happening. The minister has already answered that and indicated what communication he has had with the councils about this bill. He has answered that. Unless this question is a bit different and you want to go further, that is fine. If it is the same question, I will rule it out of order because it has been asked. You have already answered it once.

Mr TEAGUE: I am conscious that we are at clause 2 now.

The CHAIR: You cannot ask the same question on different clauses.

Mr TEAGUE: No, sorry, I was clumsy about that. I am conscious that we are at clause 2 and therefore my question is in the context particularly of clause 2 and the examination that is provided for clause 2(2). I think perhaps I am wanting to draw a distinction between a previous question, which is, 'Has the minister talked to the councils, the mayors?' and I would be amazed it the minister has not done that, but I do not mean that. I mean: have the minister and his department consulted with either of the councils or both of them about this proposition and, if so, what has the result of that consultation been?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am not too sure how I can reinforce this. We are asking the community of the South-East, the District Council of Grant, including the three wards. Those people there have a right to decide their destiny, including the currently elected members and the mayor, who are in caretaker mode—the same with the City of Mount Gambier. If we go to the council and ask them, we will know what the answer would be for that: 'We don't want to have any discussion regarding this opportunity.' That is normal. This is the best way of using democracy. We are asking the people themselves whether they want to have an investigation into the potential—and let me read that again: 'Do you support—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: We are consulting with the whole community of the District Council of Grant, the City of Mount Gambier and the businesses that are on the electoral roll there. We are asking: 'Do you support the examination of an amalgamation of the District Council of Grant and the City of Mount Gambier to form a single council?' I do not see how we can go out for better consultation than with the community members themselves. They are the ones who have to make the decision on their final destiny.

The CHAIR: The member has asked his question and the minister has answered the question. You may not like the answer, but he has answered your question, okay? As far as I can tell, every member on this side has asked their three questions each on this clause.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

Mr TELFER: I appreciated some clarity on your expectation of what the results might be. Speaking about the regulations, there is obviously no detail here. Are you presuming that within the regulations of this act itself, you will be providing any more clarity as to what the expectations might be of the government as to what a result might drive, depending on the different scenarios that may come? Are you going to be providing more definition for the members of the community down there?

The CHAIR: Just take your seat for a second, minister. Can you just summarise that question again for me?

Mr TELFER: I can do my best, thank you, Mr Chair. After providing some verbal clarity here to the committee, within the regulations, are you going to be providing some of that clarity or commentary to provide more certainty for people when they are trying to look through the details of this bill?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I will stand by my previous answers. We do not anticipate making any regulations.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: This clause refers to the close of the voters roll. Is there any provision made for businesses that—

The CHAIR: Member for Unley, we are dealing with clause 3, which deals with regulations.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Yes, thank you.

The CHAIR: Because where your question was going did not seem related.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Will there be anything in the regulations to allow those businesses that must register for every election to be on the supplementary roll, which were not motivated to vote for the council elections but wished to have a say on the plebiscite, the ability to register on the supplementary roll so they can participate in the plebiscite?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I have been advised that, and we should all know this, there are frameworks in place now for people to nominate onto the supplementary roll.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It is closed.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Everything is closed. The fact is, as I indicated a minute ago, we do not at this stage anticipate making regulations. Under clause 2, and I do not want to go back, there is a framework in place for everybody to nominate before council elections. This is going to be in collaboration with the local government elections, in the same envelope but a different colour from the voting paper.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: This is not a council election; this is a plebiscite. This is a different process altogether that is happening at the same time as the council election. The point I am making is, I know there are businesses that are not necessarily motivated to register at every election to be on the supplementary roll. However, a matter such as a council amalgamation may be a motivating factor for those businesses and they now do not have the opportunity to actually participate in this plebiscite. What will you do about that?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: From my experience, most businesspeople are residents in that community, so therefore they are already on the electoral roll and if they are not—

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: There are landlords as well. All the landlords live there too, do they?

The CHAIR: Member for Unley, you have asked your question. Give the minister an opportunity to answer.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: And there is the framework in place for all of this. The time frame is for council elections and if, for argument's sake, they have not nominated at the close of the electoral roll and the nominations, it is unfortunate.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Will those who are already on the supplementary roll and also on the electoral roll get two ballot papers for the plebiscite?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am advised, no, they will only get one.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Just to clarify that: what if they are on the electoral roll in one council district and on the supplementary roll in another council district? Will they then get two ballot papers for the plebiscite?

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: I am advised, yes, they will get a vote in both.

Clause passed.

Schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.G. BROCK (Stuart—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Roads, Minister for Veterans Affairs) (20:19): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.


At 20:20 the house adjourned until Thursday 8 September 2022 at 11:00.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT