HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-12-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 17 November 2009. Page 3879.)

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (16:23): I rise to indicate support for the second reading and complement the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition in this place (the Hon. Mr Ridgway) in relation to the bill and the significant number of amendments that were flagged at that stage. My understanding is that there are even more to come. I also commend the work of the shadow minister for local government (the member for Kavel in another place) in relation to this matter and other local government matters that we have been dealing with in recent times.

Today I wish to read into Hansard some excerpts from a letter that I received from the City of Playford. The City of Playford does a very good job in communicating with members of parliament, and I am grateful for the opportunity to be on the Playford Partnership elected members group. In addition to that, it also provides briefings for other members of parliament.

I will read a letter from Martin Lindsell (the mayor of the City of Playford) dated 23 October 2009 which states:

As you are aware the Minister has put forward the Local Government (Accountability Framework) Amendment Bill 2000 which we have discussed with you at recent City of Playford hosted MP briefings.

Please find attached the Council's submission to the proposed Bill which has been sent on to the Minister as part of the consultation process for the proposed bill.

As outlined in our submission, the City of Playford believes the Bill is primarily focused on the State Government's premise that Local Governments need a higher level of regulation to ensure good governance; our submission proposes and investigates alternatives to that approach.

The City of Playford believes that this type of legislation will create a Parent-Child relationship which works contrary to the idea that Local Government should self-manage its own operations as it is answerable to the electorate just like any other level of government.

We would like to thank you for your early input in the development of this submission. The City of Playford had earlier outlined its opposition to a higher level of regulation of local government when the Accountability Proposals Paper was circulated by the Minister. We appreciate the feedback by our local Members of Parliament on the need to provide an alternative to that approach when making our submission in response to the Bill this time.

As our enclosed submission shows, the City of Playford proposes a Good Governance Accreditation Program (similar to the one proposed by the LGA) which would provide a rating system regarding governance and accountability for Councils across South Australia. It would provide a mechanism to compare councils and to show areas of success and areas of improvement for each council overall.

While the City of Playford recognises that the legislation is likely to go through as is, it is putting this as an alternative and something for the long term. I would now like to quote a few paragraphs from the submission that the letter refers to. It states:

Councils continue to come under scrutiny for their governance practices. The focus on transparency and openness within local government has meant that there is an increased expectation by communities and State Parliament to enhance governance performance.

The Good Governance Accreditation Program must be conducted by one independent body. This would provide for an unbiased and unprejudiced assessment of each Council's governance policies and procedures and would ensure consistent assessments across the State. Companies seeking to profit from an audit of governance processes should not be used to ensure that the results are not tainted in any way.

Therefore, it seems appropriate the Good Governance Accreditation Program be conducted by the Local Government Association. The relationship of the LGA meets the requirements of an independent not-for-profit body and is closely connected with councils across South Australia.

I commend the City of Playford for making those views known and for not only criticising some aspects of the bill but for coming up with an alternative, as it says it may be considered in the long term.

Before concluding my remarks, I would like to flag to the minister that, in the committee stage, I would like to get some clarification in relation to the impact of this bill on the regional organisations of councils, otherwise known as regional local government associations.

I have had some queries raised with me in relation to that and I will seek some clarification at clause 1. With those remarks, I would again like to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition in this place for his comments in relation to the significant issues that we are about to deal with in committee, and again I indicate that I support the second reading of the bill.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH (16:31): I also rise to support the second reading of the bill. I should say at the outset that, although I have been prominently critical of a small number of particular councils, I see myself as a supporter of local government.

I think local government is coming under unprecedented criticism for several reasons. One is the new pressures of development and the potential for conflicts of interest that that creates. There are specific councils with specific problems but, most of all, I think local government is under intense pressure because it is acting as a lightning rod for dissatisfaction in the community about how it is consulted and whether it is consulted properly and listened to. The community is able to express that dissatisfaction clearly with local government because it is close to the people and because it is open.

If we could actually sit in on cabinet meetings and watch those deliberations and if exclusion from those sorts of discussions was the exception rather than the rule, it would create a very different and more democratic expectation, and when that expectation was actually denied, people would be much more upset. I think that is essentially what happens with local government: we see it warts and all, and residents are able to act against local government decisions much more readily and quickly because it is at the grassroots.

There are a number of positive measures in this bill and there are a number of new controls around financial management. I have a number of amendments. Members will have my third set of amendments, and I believe that is the final one. Members need not keep the first two; the third one incorporates all the previous ones and makes some changes based on additional discussions with the LGA.

My first amendment to clause 11 essentially makes it more explicit that the Ombudsman may investigate complaints to do with conflict of interest. We have some recent cases in local government where it is clear that management of conflict of interest is an issue. I think the most charitable thing you could say about recent events at Charles Sturt council is that that council did not manage potential conflicts of interest appropriately.

I was also struck, when speaking about the Ombudsman's inquiry into the St Clair land revocation process, that at least one honourable member here was surprised to learn that it was against the law, in fact, to caucus on council decisions as a group outside of council. I think that shows that we do, for whatever reason, seem to have slipped in our understanding of conflict of interest. There are concerns about conflict of interest and I think there needs to be more explicit provision for the Ombudsman to investigate those.

Public notice of council meetings is dealt with in clause 11A. If the previous one was a Charles Sturt amendment, this is a Copper Coast amendment but I think it has wider application. These amendments (11A and 11B) are essentially about making sure that people have access to council documents. The current act talks about agendas and minutes and so forth being at the principal office of the council. Particularly in large country councils that can be several hours' drive away. Not everyone has the internet and, even if they have the internet, they do not necessarily have broadband. This simply would ensure, in effect, that those sorts of documents were on display at, at least, one centre in a township where there was a council office operating.

My third amendment concerns the disposal of community land. This is another St Clair amendment, in effect—another Charles Sturt amendment. Essentially, this would require a poll of electors before community land could be disposed of, but the check on this being used frivolously or for insignificant decisions, or simply to make mischief, is that the trigger would be a petition signed by 200 or 5 per cent of residents, whichever is the larger. The figure of 200 is to account for country councils where some of them are very small. There are not many over 1,000 ratepayers in several country councils, so 200 would be the trigger there. On the other hand, with a council area such as Charles Sturt or Playford, you would be talking about 5,000, 6,000 or 7,000 signatures. It is not a trivial thing; you could not trigger this poll unless there was widespread community concern.

My fourth amendment is to do with an interim report. This is a Burnside amendment. I believe it is possible, as I have argued on a number of occasions in this chamber, to call on the minister to call for an interim report which I believe would give her the power to then give directions to Burnside council. Burnside continues on its way. In fact, after the events of a couple of weeks ago, it is now moving a recision motion to withdraw the electors' meeting that they voted for, which is guaranteed to throw petrol on the fire.

The Hon. P. Holloway: What? You'll have to storm in and disrupt it again, will you? Is that how you do it?

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: Well, in the history of the labour movement (and I know it is ancient history to you people), sometimes when confronted with bureaucracies and corporations and governments that will not listen, that is the sort of the thing that people eventually do. The way you avoid that is by listening and making good decisions in the first place. Anyone who has ever been involved with a community at the grassroots knows that it is not as though there is this huge rent-a-crowd out there that you can just whip up without any effort. It takes enormous effort to get people to do things like that.

Once they start doing things like storming into council meetings, it is a clear sign that there is a real problem. As someone who has spent probably a couple of decades at different times community-organising on different issues, I know that it is not an easy thing to do. There is not a rent-a-crowd out there, especially not in local councils. As I said, anyone who has had anything to do with that level of grassroots democracy would know that.

This amendment makes it explicit that the minister can call for an interim report, that the interim report would be provided to the council to comment on and that the interim report would empower the minister to then give directions to council, so that there could be no attempt by the minister to evade that or to say that that was not a power.

The irony of the current situation is that in some ways, if the Minister for State/Local Government Relations is correct, she has less power over a council under investigation than she has over a council that is not under investigation, because, when a council is not under investigation, there is at least the threat of an investigation being launched. When a council is under investigation, if it is determined to go feral and make what decisions it can before the axe falls, it can do so, and apparently there is no way to stop that, and that seems to me a strange situation.

Amendment No. 5 is about the minister laying a copy of the investigator's report before both houses of parliament within six sitting days after it is presented to the minister. That is simply an issue of transparency. Currently, a report can disappear, never to be seen or heard of again, and no-one will know what it says and what action it recommends to be taken. Again, if you take, say, the hypothetical example, which has strange echoes in recent reality, of a government being involved in trying to get a decision through council, that would never show up in a report that can never appear in the public light. So, it seems a basic issue of transparency to me.

Amendment No. 6 is about a declaration of a caretaker period, which follows on and is triggered by an interim report. If the minister receives an interim report that indicates serious problems, the minister can then institute caretaker provisions on that council. Again, this is to remedy the situation where we seem to have less control over a council under investigation, presumably at least for potentially serious breaches of the Local Government Act, than we have over a council that is not under investigation. So, the caretaker provisions would be triggered by an interim report, and the then minister could act on them. Again, as in my first set of amendments, that would not be an automatic component of an investigation or a default provision: it would occur only if an interim report identified issues.

Amendment No. 7 simply brings whistleblowing provisions in the Public Sector Management Act into the Local Government Act. Amendment No. 8 requires more detail on the register of interests. In the next day or two, I will have some information to share about the number of councillors who seem to be employed by the Department of Treasury and Finance which, as we know, pays the salary of electorate staff and political advisers.

Currently, all a councillor has to show on their register of interests is their source of income. So, they can put down 'Department of Treasury and Finance' when, in fact, they are an electorate officer or political adviser. This amendment would require that more detail be provided to make sure that the community was clear about the interests of their councillors.

I look forward to the committee stage. As I said, I think there are a number of positive amendments in this bill. I have put up a series of other amendments, which I think will make local government much more accountable. Recent events in the Burnside and Charles Sturt councils highlight at the very least some of the potential loopholes in local government that can be abused by people. I will put forward these amendments to close some of those loopholes in order to create greater transparency and accountability.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Energy) (16:41): I thank honourable members for their contribution to the second reading debate. I am able to deal with some of the issues now, particularly those issues raised by the Hon. David Ridgway. In relation to good public administration, the Hon. David Ridgway asked whether I wished to place on the record a definition of the term 'good public administration', which the bill proposes to insert in the Local Government Act. I am advised that it would be inadvisable to insert such a definition in the act for two reasons: first, such a definition would be long; and, secondly, and more importantly, an understanding of what constitutes good public administration is continually evolving as standards change. Sufficient material—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: At least we have standards, unlike the former government. I will not be distracted, because we have important legislation in front of us. Sufficient material exists elsewhere for the purpose of guiding local government. The Hon. David Ridgway has invited me to respond to several requests for—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I do not want to repeat this during the committee stage. The Hon. Mr Ridgway has invited me to respond to several requests from the LGA that it would be involved in preparing model documentation for the purpose of having that model documentation incorporated in regulations, under various clauses of this bill. The government intends to work cooperatively with the LGA, as we always do, in all cases where regulations are being considered. The government would welcome the LGA's assistance in this matter, as we welcome its assistance in all other relevant matters.

The Hon. David Ridgway has, as has the LGA, asked me to define the meaning of the term 'reasonable time'. I am sure that ratepayers will let councils know if they consider that council documents are not being provided on line within a reasonable time—and each council can be responsive to its community in that regard. There are many other pieces of legislation that use the term 'reasonable', and the courts do not tend to have problems with interpreting that term.

In relation to annual service charges for waste collection, I note the Hon. David Ridgway's concerns that the changing waste collection regime adopted by the District Council of Yorke Peninsula is 'inherently unfair'. The Hon. Mr Ridgway has asked for my assurance that this amendment will not affect the imposition of a special rate struck by a council to provide a service to a particular community. I believe the honourable member was referring to a separate rate, which is dealt with under section 154 of the Local Government Act. There is no proposal in this bill to amend section 154, and I am happy to give the assurance sought by the honourable member that separate rates under section 154 are not affected by any part of this bill.

In relation to clause 46, in taking up another concern raised by the LGA, the Hon. David Ridgway has asked about the process that would apply if a local government regional subsidiary wished to be exempt from the provisions requiring the establishment of an audit committee. Clause 46 proposes that exemptions, if any, are to be effected by regulation; therefore, there is to be no application process as such. I intend to consult with the LGA on the making of any regulations under this provision.

I note that honourable members have raised some concerns and that various amendments have been placed on file, and I ask that I be allowed to respond to each of these matters in turn during the committee stage, to which I look forward.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: As I indicated in my second reading contribution, a number of participants in regional local government associations have raised the issue of the impact of this bill on those organisations. Could the minister clarify what is the impact of the bill on the various local government associations in regional areas? I think there is also one larger body in the metropolitan area.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the government is not aware of any specific concerns that have been raised by the LGA or, through the consultation period, in relation to any direct untoward impact on local government associations, whether they be regional or metropolitan.

A number of issues have been raised and, fundamentally, they are being dealt with by the amendments. They are the issues of most concern. The LGA has clearly articulated its concerns, but I do not believe that any of those specifically impact on the regional associations per se—at least, not that I am aware.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: I thank the minister for that. For members who are not aware of it, those associations are funded by the councils they represent, and they carry out regional coordination and advocacy in an admirable manner on what some might say is the smell of an oily rag. The concern may be that those very lean bodies could be impacted by this legislation. Could the minister say what changes there will be for those bodies as a result of the passage of this legislation?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Which bodies are you talking about?

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: Could the minister just clarify the overall impact on those associations of the passage of this legislation?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have already put it on record; I do not have any additional information to add to that. I am not aware of any direct impact per se. The issues that are of concern have been identified, and we will deal with each one by one; however, I am not aware of any specific impact, positive or negative, on the associations.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 3, after line 11—Insert:

(1) Section 4(1)—After the definition of 'council subsidiary' insert:

'CPI' means the Consumer Price Index (All Groups Index for Adelaide) published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics;

This amendment inserts a definition of CPI. This definition relates to amendments to clause 8 for the prudential reports required to be prepared by councils for projects over $4 million. The CPI is to be used to index the $4 million threshold in future years. This will allow the threshold to move in line with inflation.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 5 to 7 passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 4, after line 27—Insert:

(3a) Section 48(1)(b)(ii)—After '$4 000 000' insert:

(indexed)

This amendment is consequential.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 4, lines 35 to 37 [clause 8(6), inserted subsection (4a)]—Delete subsection (4a) and substitute:

(4a) A report under subsection (1) must not be prepared by a person who has an interest in the relevant project (but may be prepared by a person who is an employee of the council).

This amendment will delete the restriction originally proposed in the bill on council employees preparing prudential reports. After representations from the LGA I believe that there are some instances where council staff are suitably qualified to undertake this work and, as such, councils should not be put to additional expense. We believe that there are sufficient safeguards around prudential reports, as evidenced by clause 8(1) of the bill, which allows for the development of regulations that guide prudential management policies, practices and procedures.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 5, after line 37 [clause 8(7)]—Insert:

(6ca) In this section, $4,000,000 (indexed) means that that amount is to be adjusted for the purposes of this section on 1 January of each year, starting on 1 January 2011, by multiplying the amount by a proportion obtained by dividing the CPI for the September quarter of the immediately preceding year by the CPI for the September quarter, 2009.

This amendment is linked to other amendments standing in my name in relation to clause 8. It sets the threshold for a council to seek a prudential report at $4 million (indexed). So, it is consequential.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 9 and 10 passed.

Clause 11.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I move:

Page 6, after line 25—Insert:

(a1) Section 74(4)—After paragraph (d) insert:

or

(e) seek to gain access to any documents or reports in the possession of the council that relate to that matter to any significant extent.

This amendment relates to members' disclosure of interests. In moving this amendment, we think it provides greater accountability and, also, more clarity when it comes to members of council declaring matters of interest.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment; in fact, we do not support these two amendments. We believe it is an ill-considered response to a problem for which there is already a suitable remedy in the act. There is no loophole in the act about this; such behaviour is a serious crime. Honourable members could examine section 62(3) of the Local Government Act, which provides:

A member or former member of a council must not, whether within or outside the state, make improper use of information acquired by virtue of his or her position as a member of the council to gain, directly or indirectly, an advantage for himself or herself or for another person or to cause detriment to the council.

Maximum penalty: $10,000 or imprisonment for two years.

It is not a crime for a councillor to obtain information on a council agenda about confidential items; however, it is a crime to use that information for improper advantage, and, as I have outlined, there is a significant penalty for that: they could face imprisonment. Therefore, we believe the amendments are unwarranted.

The amendments amount to suggesting that a council CEO (an unelected official) should be required to censor each meeting agenda, trying to anticipate which items might raise potential conflicts for each council. That is not an appropriate role for any CEO. It is also pre-empting the councillor's own decision whether or not to declare a conflict of interest.

The amendments reflect a misunderstanding of the existing provisions in the act and should be opposed at this time. As the chamber is aware, there is currently an investigation occurring into the City of Burnside, and it is possible that some recommendations will flow from that investigation about conflict of interest provisions in the act. If that is the case, then I am more than happy to reconsider the issue at that particular time.

At present, the onus is on individual board and council members—and this is a principle that generally goes across both government and private sectors—to know and understand their own business and to identify any conflict, if and when it arises. That could be quite complex and it could span a wide range of different issues.

It would be near impossible for a CEO to understand all of the intricacies of individuals' interests and then be able to make a determination. Even if a member has identified a conflict, even if that has occurred, the CEO would not be able to understand the extent of that and to follow it through, in all its nuances, to a wide range of matters as they might apply to an agenda.

So, it is logical and reasonable to continue that the onus rest with that individual. As I have stated, there are significant safeguards in place to protect that, and fairly significant penalties. It does not get any more severe than imprisoning someone.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I move:

Page 6, after line 38—Insert:

(3) Section 74—After subsection (5) insert:

(5a) In addition to the operation of subsection (5), the Ombudsman may, on the complaint of a person with an interest considered by the Ombudsman to be sufficient in the circumstances, investigate an allegation of a breach of this section.

(5b) If the Ombudsman decides to conduct an investigation under subsection (5a)—

(a) the Ombudsman may exercise the powers of the Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act 1972 as if carrying out an investigation under that act, subject to such modifications as may be necessary, or as may be prescribed; and

(b) at the conclusion of the investigation, the Ombudsman may prepare a report on any aspect of the investigation and may publish the report, a part of the report, or a summary of the report, in such a manner as the Ombudsman thinks fit.

As I said in my second reading contribution, the amendment makes it quite explicit that complaints about conflict of interest can be considered by the Ombudsman. There are broad powers in the Ombudsman Act at the moment relating to local government where it would be possible for the Ombudsman to do this, but, as is the case with the debate about interim reports, sometimes there is a benefit in making this quite explicit and to flag to the Ombudsman that this is an emerging issue, as recent events have, indeed, shown that it is, that conflicts of interest are becoming more problematic and more controversial in local government.

This amendment makes it quite explicit that the Ombudsman may focus on conflicts of interest, and that will also send a signal to community members as well, with concerns about this, to take up potential conflicts of interest with the Ombudsman.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The opposition will be supporting the Hon. David Winderlich's amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government does not support this amendment, simply because we believe it is unnecessary. We believe that, under the Ombudsman Act 1972, the Ombudsman can investigate and report on any administrative act; the parliament may also refer matters to the Ombudsman. Therefore, this amendment would appear to add nothing to the Ombudsman's existing powers.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (12)
Bressington, A. Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L.
Lawson, R.D. Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I.
Parnell, M. Ridgway, D.W. Schaefer, C.V.
Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G. Winderlich, D.N. (teller)
NOES (9)
Brokenshire, R.L. Finnigan, B.V. Gago, G.E. (teller)
Gazzola, J.M. Holloway, P. Hood, D.G.E.
Hunter, I.K. Wortley, R.P. Zollo, C.

Majority of 3 for the ayes.

Amendment thus carried; clause as amended passed.

New clause 11A.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I move:

Page 6, after line 38—Insert:

11A—Amendment of section 84—Public notice of council meetings

(1) Section 84—After subsection (1) insert:

(1a) The chief executive officer must give the notice required under subsection (1) in the following manner:

(a) by causing a copy of the notice and the agenda for the meeting to be placed on public display at each office of the council that is open to the public for the general administration of council business within its area; and

(b) by publishing the notice and the agenda for the meeting on a website determined by the chief executive officer.

(2) Section 84(2)—Delete 'Notice under subsection (1) is given by causing a copy of the notice and agenda for a meeting to be placed on public display at the principal office of the council—' and substitute:

The notice required under subsection (1) must be given—

(3) Section 84(2a)—Delete 'The' and substitute:

Without derogating from subsection (1a), the

(4) Section 84(3)—Delete 'subsection (2)' and substitute:

subsection (1a)(a)

(5) Section 84(4)—Delete 'under subsection (2)' and substitute:

, and continue to be published on the website, under subsection (1a)

I do not believe I need to explain this provision any further.

New clause inserted.

New clause 11B.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I move:

11B—Amendment of section 88—Public notice of committee meetings

(1) Section 88—After subsection (1) insert:

(1a) The chief executive officer must give the notice required under subsection (1) in the following manner:

(a) by causing a copy of the notice and the agenda for the meeting to be placed on public display at each office of the council that is open to the public for the general administration of council business within its area; and

(b) by publishing the notice and the agenda for the meeting on a website determined by the chief executive officer.

(2) Section 88(2)—Delete 'Notice under subsection (1) is given by causing a copy of the notice and agenda for a meeting to be placed on public display at the principal office of the council' and substitute:

The notice required under subsection (1) must be given

(3) Section 88(2a)—Delete 'The' and substitute:

Without derogating from subsection (1a), the

(4) Section 88(3)—Delete 'subsection (2)' and substitute:

subsection (1a)(a)

(5) Section 88(4)—Delete 'under subsection (2)' and substitute:

, and continue to be published on the website, under subsection (1a)

New clause inserted.

Clauses 12 to 15 passed.

Clause 16.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 8—

Line 19 [clause 16(6), inserted subsection (5a)]—Delete 'report' and substitute:

opinions

Line 27 [clause 16(6), inserted subsection (5b)]—Delete 'report' and substitute:

opinions

Line 33 [clause 16(6), inserted subsection (5b)(b)]—Delete 'report' and substitute:

opinions

Line 39 [clause 16(6), inserted subsection (5b)(b)]—Delete 'report' and substitute:

opinions

Page 9—

Line 1 [clause 16(6), inserted subsection (5c)]—Delete 'report' and substitute:

opinions

Line 5 [clause 16(6), inserted subsection (5d)]—Delete 'report under subsection (3) may be kept confidential until it is' and substitute:

opinions under subsection (3) may be kept confidential until they are

Line 29 [clause 16(10), inserted subsection (9)]—Delete 'A report' and substitute:

The opinions

There are seven amendments involved here that relate to a similar issue, and they merely correct an oversight in the drafting of this clause. Clause 16 as drafted replaces the need for an auditor to provide a report and instead requires the auditor to provide two opinions. These amendments are consequential and ensure that subsequent references in section 129 are to the opinions rather than a non-existent report.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 17 to 21 passed.

Clause 22.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I move:

Page 11, line 14—Delete 'a prescribed service' and substitute:

a waste collection service

If this amendment is defeated I will not proceed with a number of further consequential amendments to clause 22, which all relate particularly to the issue of waste collection. This amendment is to address the issues in relation to the District Council of Yorke Peninsula and in particular to its waste collection charges. It provides more clarity and certainty in relation to that service.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment and the consequential amendments from the honourable member, who seeks to confine the effect of this new section 155(11) to the waste collection charge. The government does not believe that the changes to section 155 need to be confined in this way. The wording of the amendment would prevent a council from recovering in a single service charge the cost of a whole waste management cycle, including education, collection and disposal. We believe that this should, at least potentially, apply to all those services covered by a service charge that involve true property availability. At present the government intends in this instance to look only at waste collection. However, we believe that the principle is a sound one and, if problems arise concerning other services to the land, we do not want to have to come back and reopen the whole bill. We believe it is a sound principle and should apply potentially to all services.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Page 11, after line 16—Insert:

(12) Despite a preceding subsection, if land does not have capacity to generate waste to any material degree, a service rate or annual service charge in respect of the provision of a waste collection service cannot be imposed in relation to that particular piece of land.

My amendment very simply prohibits a council from charging a waste collection fee for properties that have no or very little capacity to generate waste that is suitable for kerbside collection. I have been prompted to move this amendment due to the large number of constituents who have contacted my office with concerns that land, especially primary production land, has attracted full waste collection charges where there is no or very limited capacity to generate waste that can be disposed of through kerbside collection.

When questioned about this, councils have provided the response that any property which has the capacity to generate waste will be charged the full waste collection fee regardless of whether or not the service is utilised and regardless of what type of waste could possibly be generated by the property. That is to say that, because the service is provided to the property, a fee will be levied even though it will not be used.

I believe that councils would not be impressed should property owners decide to dispose of the waste generated on primary production land in kerbside collection bins, especially in the case of waste from livestock, and therefore believe it only fair that land that has only limited capacity to generate waste suitable for kerbside collection should not be charged a waste collection fee by councils, as the service will not be utilised.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that, given that the first amendment I moved was defeated (and I did not proceed with others because they were consequential), in particular this makes good sense that a piece of land that has no capacity to generate waste should not be charged a fee, so the opposition will support the Hon. Mr Darley's amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment of the Hon. John Darley. This amendment would prevent a council imposing service rates or annual service charges for waste collection if the land does not have the capacity to generate waste to any material degree. There are two problems with the amendment. The first problem is that this amendment is vague and uncertain, so it is not clear what is meant by the capacity to generate waste. There are no recognised standards for distinguishing between land that can generate waste and land that cannot. Land that is vacant or used for primary production can generate waste from time to time and it is not practical to suggest that council officers should be patrolling land to determine the extent to which it is capable of generating waste.

The second difficulty is that this amendment would undermine a council's efforts to make waste collection services available across a wide part of its area. Councils on the fringe of urban areas and in rural parts of the state cannot necessarily afford to provide waste collection services available to all land. They usually establish a bin collection route, and all properties along that route have the potential to benefit from that service because the council has incurred the cost of sending a waste collection truck past the land. Accordingly, it is appropriate that all properties that have the potential to benefit should pay a service charge to reflect the service that the council is making available by sending the truck past the land.

If a council receives no revenue from vacant properties on a bin route, it will increase the likelihood that a route may be financially unviable and the service to other properties along that route may have to be discarded. Because there is a potential to provide services that might not be directly available at the land, nevertheless waste collection routes can be made available in a number of outlying areas, so there is some potential benefit but not necessarily the same type of benefit for those who have services directly delivered to the land.

We believe there should at least be scope for those properties to be included in some sort of charge, as waste collection is a costly service and it is important that councils have access to generate revenue from as broad a base as is reasonably possible, and we believe this amendment could end up providing an unreasonable elimination of some property owners who can potentially derive some benefit.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: Could the minister give some examples of other specific levies for services in local government that are charged when the service is not delivered?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised on a number of fronts of the example of community waste water management schemes. It is important that we at least continue to provide that potential and, although I am sympathetic to the honourable member's amendment, it would end up being a very restrictive impost on councils.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 23 passed.

Clause 24.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 12, after line 10—Insert:

(2) Section 161—After subsection (4) insert:

(5) The Crown will be liable to reimburse a council for the amount of any rebate of rates under this section that relates to supported accommodation that consists of accommodation for persons provided by housing associations registered under the South Australian Co-operative and Community Housing Act 1991 under a scheme established by the Minister for the purposes of this subsection after consultation with the LGA.

I will talk to my amendment No.1 and to a consequential amendment that I have after further consultation with the LGA. In essence, these amendments are about preventing a cost shift, as we see it, or cost imposition by the state government to local government by the introduction of this provision within the bill we are debating.

Family First supports the expansion of the rebate on rates for community housing and congratulates the government for the concept of the initiative of rebating on community housing. However, the concern we have is that simply with the stroke of the government's pen councils will be deprived of the rating revenue from all those properties which were (a) once purely administrative offices of a community housing organisation but now will be considered community housing related and eligible for the exemption and (b) once public housing provided by the government as Housing SA stock, but as the government gradually vacates the public housing sector by selling those to community housing the rates the government once paid at 100 per cent to council for public housing will now, in effect, become 25 per cent of those rates as community housing.

Whilst we strongly support the concept of community and public housing, we have enormous concerns about cost shift. I understand that local government has complained to members about this cost shift or imposition, and we are moving these two amendments to ensure that the minister creates a scheme to reimburse councils for the lost rates as a result of the impact of this clause. We considered it too cumbersome to prescribe the parameters of this scheme within the clause, so we have left it to the minister to develop a scheme.

In conclusion, I will speak to the consequential amendment, which impacts upon whether members support my amendment No.1. It is a consequential amendment arising from further consultation with the LGA. In essence, the LGA would like to see this clause deleted from these amendments: that would be its preferred position. However, given that we are sympathetic to rebates for community housing, we believe that this is an option that will not be an impost on councils but will achieve the goal that the government wanted, from the point of view of making it easier for residents of community housing.

In essence, the LGA decided that there was some compulsion upon the minister to draw up the scheme. Initially, my amendment did not specifically have that wording so the operative provision of my second amendment is amendment No. 4, with the first three amendments being consequential to the fourth amendment to schedule 1 of the bill. It is my understanding that the LGA supports these amendments. Frankly, to summarise, it is not really any skin off the government's nose, as I understand it, because at the moment it is already paying this money, and I am told that the government will save as much as $2.9 million.

However, if that becomes an impost on councils two things will happen—and bear in mind that it will primarily be councils like Playford, Onkaparinga and Port Adelaide Enfield, which already have heavy demand on them for infrastructure support services to the community. Either they will have to pull $2.9 million worth of services out of the community or the other ratepayers will have to cop additional rates to offset that reduction. That is why I am moving this amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment, which would require the Crown to reimburse council for the amount of any rebate of rates that a council must provide to community housing associations. This is, we believe, a very misguided amendment. Councils are currently required to provide rate rebates to a wide variety of organisations and landholders.

The act requires rebates of 100 per cent to be granted to hospitals, health centres, churches, cemeteries and zoos. The act also requires rebates of at least 75 per cent to be offered to community service organisations, schools and a wide variety of organisations delivering community services. The act provides that any of the following are community services:

provision of emergency accommodation;

provision of food or clothing for disadvantaged persons;

provision of supported accommodation;

provision of essential services or employment support for persons with mental health disabilities or with intellectual or physical disabilities;

provision of legal services for disadvantaged persons; and

provision of drug or alcohol rehab services or the conduct of research into or the provision of community education about diseases or illnesses or the provision of palliative care to persons who suffer from diseases or illnesses.

I highlight to honourable members that supported accommodation is only one of the many types of community services that are mentioned in section 161. As honourable members might recall from our earlier debate on clause 4, there has been some disagreement in recent years over the definition of 'supported accommodation'. Legal advisers to local government have suggested that councils can adopt, if they choose, a very narrow definition of 'supported accommodation' drawn in line with another unrelated act. They have suggested that 'supported accommodation' should be interpreted to mean only accommodation that involves personal services.

I am advised that the effect has been to disadvantage these very important and worthy organisations. The government believes that the definition is too narrow and so, in clause 4 (earlier in this bill), we have made it explicit that supported accommodation does include housing provided by community housing associations. When this chamber supported clause 4 it chose to agree with that definition.

Therefore, it makes no sense to single out this one form of community service and say that the state government should fund this rebate when local government itself funds all other forms of rebates for hospitals, health centres, churches, cemeteries, zoos, schools, community service organisations, etc.

Perhaps the honourable member, in moving this amendment, is under the false impression that the government is not providing support to local government in this area. Let me put the record straight. The current year's state budget includes the following estimated allocations to local government:

$33.2 million in local council rate concessions for pensioners and self-funded retirees (many of these concessions would be paid in respect of supported accommodation);

$17.2 million for public library services;

$11 million through planning and development grants for improvements to regional open space and the public realm;

$5.7 million to the home and community care program;

$3.5 million for community waste management systems;

$2.1 million for the state Black Spot Program; and

$4.3 million for stormwater infrastructure, etc.

Those are the major state government contributions to local government this year. Clause 4 of this bill (that we debated earlier) has merely insisted that local government step up and stop trying to deny that the community housing organisations are providing a community service, alongside all the other community services that receive a 75 per cent rate rebate. There is no justification for inserting this in section 161, a response that would impose a new obligation on the state government's budget.

We are not cost shifting. I am advised that, under the South Australian Co-operative and Community Housing Act 1991, the state's payment of concessions would continue for any Community Housing Association house where the tenant is entitled to a remission. There is no changed plan for that particular entitlement, so to accuse us of cost shifting is incorrect.

I put on notice, for added reassurance for honourable members, that later on I intend to move a transitional provision for rebate of rates that will allow for the provision of a phase-in for the 75 per cent rate rebate for community housing potentially over a period of three years at a council's discretion, if it so chooses.

We have listened to the concerns of the LGA and said, 'All right, we will listen to your concerns.' To reduce the impost of this, councils will be able to use their discretion and if they choose to do it all in one year that is fine, but they will have the potential to phase in this particular rebate over three years. For instance, they might go 25 per cent in year one, 50 per cent in year two and 75 per cent for the third year. We believe that is a very considered way to ensure that local councils can adjust their financial and business plans and rates etc. to account for any impost if it occurs.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have a question of the mover, given that we have two different point of views at present. The mover of the amendment is saying that it is a cost shift of potentially $2.9 million onto local government. The minister is saying that we do not have a cost shift. I just ask the member whether he is able to give us an explanation of exactly how he sees that cost shift happening.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: It is a cost shift from my point of view. It is commendable that the minister talks about all the exemptions that local government already gives, but where I use the term 'cost shift' it is from the point of view that at the moment local government does not have to come up with what is approximately $2 million by virtue of the government saying, 'Right, we are making this amendment.' It is moving another amendment now that it will be over three years, but the bottom line is it that this is an additional $2 million of cost shift from either residents and/or the government with community housing that will have an impact on every other resident in that area.

I call it a cost shift because at the moment that $2.9 million is not coming off the bottom line of local government and, whilst we support the rebates to community housing, it is an additional increase in the rebated structure requirements as the minister has indicated because the minister has said that this is over and above all those others. From my point of view, it is actually going to hit local government and therefore all the ratepayers by approximately $2.9 million.

Therefore, I say that it is a cost shift depending on how you define 'cost shift'. If the government is moving this sort of thing in this chamber that has an impact on all the other ratepayers and on councils' bottom line, then whilst its intent is good, it should back that up with some money so that there is no cost shift.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the Hon. Mr Robert Brokenshire's amendment.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Greens will not be supporting the amendments largely for the same reasons that the minister gave. There is a range of land uses that have a community benefit, and I certainly include these cooperative and community housing ventures in that category. However, I think we do need to treat them together in terms of where the cost burden finally lies, and I do not think it is reasonable to pull this one sector out for special treatment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have just been given some additional information that might assist members. Apparently, we did some estimated costings in terms of the effect that this might have on councils. For instance, there was some work done on the City of Mount Gambier, and I am informed that it budgeted for rate revenue of about $12.4 million this financial year, based on 12,857 rateable properties.

The effect of this measure would be either to cut Mount Gambier's predicted rate revenue by a quarter of 1 per cent or to increase the burden on other ratepayers. I cannot see how many properties are indentified. The community housing associations, which own 81 houses in Mount Gambier, would get a combined benefit of $47,250, but cutting the rates on these 81 properties that have been identified as coming under this would require the owners of the other 12,776 properties to make up the difference.

It is estimated that this would be an average of 27¢ for each other ratepayer, so it is really just not reasonable to suggest that this is having some sort of significant adverse effect. We believe Mount Gambier is an average example of how these things might fall out. It is not a significant impost and, like I said, it is unreasonable to separate out community housing. We will also be proposing transitional arrangements for any council that believes that this might be difficult to adjust for and, as I said, they will have the potential to be able to do that over three separate financial years.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I have a question for the minister. What assistance would the state government provide if the rate rebates were a significant proportion of the budget of a particular council?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: We would listen to their concerns. As I said, we have done some modelling so we do not believe that there is a huge impost. We have provided for a three year transition period. If a council then determined that that would still have some significant adverse impact on their particular council area, I would be happy to hear from that council and we would sit down and work out some sort of accommodating arrangement.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I would just like to advise colleagues, in their consideration of this amendment, that the South Australian Institute of Rate Administrators Incorporated did an assessment of this particular amendment. Whilst the minister highlighted Mount Gambier, it says in this document that the impact of this proposal is significant for councils.

The document states that, for example, the cost to ratepayers for the 2009-10 rating year for only six councils—Onkaparinga, Salisbury, Tea Tree Gully, Holdfast Bay, Adelaide and Port Adelaide-Enfield—would be approximately $1.02 million. It goes on to say that, for the estimated 4,520 properties in this state, that cost would escalate to somewhere around $2.9 million. That is based on an average rate of only $850 per property.

The only other point that I would ask the minister is: is it true that the government would see in the future a significant increase in community housing, because I think that is something to consider as well? As community housing grows (and I believe that it will grow for the right reasons), clearly this becomes even more of a burden, and someone will have to pay for this or services will have to be cut. That is my concern.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I will answer that. The LGA and the SAIRA state that there are 4,520 properties throughout the state liable to be affected by this amendment. This is an exaggeration. On 7 September 2009, there were 3,452 community housing association properties. The higher quoted figure, we believe, seems to have mistakenly included housing cooperatives as well, but housing cooperatives are not mentioned in the amendment. So, the figure is very much exaggerated. We believe that some of the 3,452 might already be correctly receiving the rebate.

In relation to the SAIRA submission, which states that the expansion of Housing Association-owned properties has been significant in recent years and that it is anticipated that this trend will continue, advice from the Office of Community Housing is that the amendment would apply to no more than 3,452 houses statewide. Some of these properties would already be correctly receiving the 75 per cent rate rebate.

The Office of Community Housing has advised that the number of Housing Association properties has stabilised or plateaued in recent years. Many housing associations have long waiting lists, and some of them are not accepting any new registrations. However, it is true that there is likely to be some growth in this particular sector, largely as a result of the commonwealth government's Nation Building—Economic Stimulus Plan.

Stimulus funding has been directed to some of the larger community housing associations because they house people with high needs. We believe that a bit of scaremongering is going on here. As I have said, the government has listened to the LGA and those councils involved, and we have attempted to reduce any impost by allowing councils the discretion to absorb that impact over three separate financial years.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I indicate that I will be supporting the government. I think the Hon. Rob Brokenshire has raised an important issue about future growth and how that might increase costs, but I do not think it makes sense to pull this one sector out of the mish-mash of cross-subsidies between state and local government.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 25.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I move:

Page 12, after line 14—Insert:

(2) Section 194—After subsection (2) insert:

(2a) The report prepared under subsection (2)(a) must be published in accordance with the regulations.

(2b) A public consultation policy for the purposes of subsection (2)(b) must include a period of at least two months from the first publication of a report under subsection (2a) for community consultation in relation to the proposal.

(2c) If during the period of two months referred to in subsection (2b) the council receives a petition in the prescribed form signed by not less than the prescribed number of electors (being electors at the time of signing), the proposal to revoke the classification of the land as community land cannot proceed unless the council obtains majority support for the proposal at a poll of electors for the area of the council conducted in accordance with subsection (2d).

(2d) The following provisions apply to a poll under subsection (2c):

(a) the Local Government (Elections) Act 1999 will apply to the poll subject to modifications, exclusions or additions prescribed by regulation;

(b) the council will have majority support for the proposal to revoke the classification of the land as community land if a majority of electors voting at the poll approve the revocation;

(c) the council must publish the results of the poll in a newspaper circulating within the area of the council.

(3) Section 194(3)—Delete 'of subsection (2)' and substitute:

set out above, and subject to the outcome of any poll conducted under subsection (2c).

(4) Section 194—After subsection (6) insert:

(7) For the purposes of a petition under subsection (2c)—

(a) a person who signs another person's name to a petition or who knowingly signs a petition more than once, or who, not being an elector for the relevant council, knowingly signs a petition, is guilty of an offence;

(b) a person who gives or offers or promises to give any money or other material benefit to a person to obtain the person's signature to a petition is guilty of an offence;

(c) a person who, without reasonable excuse, hinders or obstructs a person from collecting signatures for a petition is guilty of an offence;

(d) a person who uses or makes available to any person any particulars obtained from a petition about a signatory to a petition for a purpose that is not connected with the administration of this act is guilty of an offence.

(8) A person who is found guilty of an offence against subsection (7) is liable to a penalty not exceeding $5,000.

(9) In subsection (2c)—

Prescribed number of electors means, in relation to a petition that relates to a proposal to revoke the classification of land as community land—

(a) 200 electors in respect of places of residence within the area of the relevant council; or

(b) five per cent of electors in respect of places of residence within the area of the relevant council,

whichever is the greater.

As I explained in my second reading speech, this amendment would require a poll of residents in relation to the disposal of community land. This amendment was inspired from St Clair. This is not something you would want to be used frequently, lightly or mischievously. The triggers for a poll are essentially that 200 or five per cent of residents, whichever is the greater, would have to call for such a poll in a petition.

The 200 relates to small country councils, which might have only 1,000 or 1,200 ratepayers. The 5 per cent of ratepayers or residents relates to larger metropolitan councils. If you take the example of St Clair, which I think has about 100,000 ratepayers, such a poll would require something like 5,000 people to sign a petition. So, it is quite a high hurdle to jump for a community group that is concerned about a council decision, in that they could not do it very easily. However, the amendment does give an opportunity for that sort of direct exercise of democracy if there is enough concern. As I have said, it cannot be used lightly or easily, but it will give that option to a community that is really concerned about a decision their council is making.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I oppose this amendment, which proposes to revoke the classification of community land which may be subject to veto in a poll of electors, the requirement to be triggered by a petition, which must be signed by at least 200 or 5 per cent of electors, whichever is the greater. The figure of 5 per cent is particularly low and would allow a very small minority to control important strategic decisions of the council.

To the best of my knowledge, the LGA does not support this amendment. Under the amendment, if a requirement for a poll is triggered by a petition, the default position is refusal. In other words, the revocation is to be prevented, unless the majority of those voting approve the revocation. The government clearly does not support this proposal.

Ratepayers elect their council to make decisions in the best interests of their community. Councils must take a long-term view, and sometimes this means making decisions that not everyone likes or agrees with. Apart from community land, councils can make controversial decisions on many other topics, including the setting of rates, which is something we often see. It would make the business of local government unworkable if every controversial decision had to be referred to voters for a decision. Elected members must take into account the best interests of the broader community, not just a particular group or section of the community.

Sometimes the decisions councils take are not popular, but it is government's task to make tough decisions. It is not a popularity contest: it is about planning for the future of local communities. Councils are required to have policies on how they consult with their communities. They must use these processes on many occasions; for example, when they want to change their rating structure and also when they want to revoke the status of community land.

Consultation includes methods such as putting advertisements in newspapers or erecting signs, and sending letters, etc. If ratepayers are unhappy with the council's decisions, they can make their views known through the ballot box, just as they can with the state and federal governments. There are only two cases in which the Local Government Act provides for polls of electors with binding effect. One relates to structural reforms proposed by the Boundary Adjustment Facilitation Panel, based on a submission from electors—that is when boundaries of councils are sought to be changed; and the other relates to council representation review proposals to change the method of election of a principal member.

In both these cases, these are matters that relate to the fundamental issue of the way in which councils' representation is structured, not the decisions that councils make in the ordinary course of their fulfilling their role and responsibilities. However, even in these constitutional-type polls a base level of voter turnout must be reached before the poll has a binding effect. In the case of the structural reform proposal, to which I referred, the turnout figure is 40 per cent, so there is a pretty significant safeguard there. In the case of a poll relating to a change in the way a principal member is elected, the turnout that must be reached before the poll is binding is a percentage of electors equal to half the percentage turnout of that council at its last periodic election. So, again, safeguards are structured in there.

These formulae take into account that, under voluntary voting, the results of any simple majority poll will be skewed towards rejection—opponents being more motivated to vote than those who agree or who do not have an interest, or a particularly strong interest—and the poll may not be an accurate reflection of the dominant elector view. This amendment has no such turnout requirement, making it possible for the same relatively small number of electors that trigger a poll to defeat the proposal if other electors are unconcerned or not particularly interested, and few vote.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The opposition supports the Hon. David Winderlich's amendment, particularly in light of the St Clair issue. I would think that 5 per cent of electors in the City of Charles Sturt would be about 5,000 or possibly more, and I think today we have seen the minister—

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Bernard Finnigan interjects that the Hon. Michael Atkinson, one of the local members close to the City of Charles Sturt, would brainwash them and control everything out there.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): The Hon. Mr Finnigan's interjections are out of order.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: It is the most intelligent thing he has said today, Mr Acting Chairman. However, today we have seen the minister do a backflip on her decision in relation to St Clair. I was not at the meeting last Monday, but I was told that there were about 600 people present; I do not know whether that is accurate but it is somewhere around that figure and not 5,000. The minister has said that it would result in a very small number of people having an impact on a council decision; well, today we have seen the minister embarrassed by 600 people turning up to a meeting of the council, and she has asked the Supreme Court to set aside her decision. Clearly, this is an matter that is current because of the St Claire issue, but it certainly warrants the support of the opposition, and we are happy to provide that.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Greens support the concept of local councils being able to revoke community land, because it does provide a little flexibility when the needs of the community change. One can imagine that what are often, but not always, small parcels of land that really have no strategic or future use for a local council could be declassified and then swapped or sold for some genuine community benefit. Certainly, the St Clair land swap situation has focused our minds on how that arrangement can go terribly wrong.

For me the test is different to the one that the minister applied, where she talked about binding ballots or plebiscites being related to only structural or administrative-type arrangements such as the moving of boundaries or the method of election. For me, the test is that if the decision in question is one that, once made, cannot or will not be undone then we need a very high bar before we allow even a democratically elected council to go down that path.

When it comes to places like St Clair, once the community land classification has been revoked the council is free to sell it, and it is cold comfort to say to the residents, 'Well, next election you can throw out all those people who resolved to declassify that park.' It will be too late; the park will have been sold or disposed of, and houses will have been built on it. So, when it comes to important decisions such as this I believe it is appropriate to go to the people and ask for their views. I support the amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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