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

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

(Continued from page 4136.)

Clauses 26 and 27 passed.

Clause 28.

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

Page 13, after line 8—Insert:

(3a) An application under subsection (3) must be made within five years after the declaration is made under this section.

This is an amendment to section 210 and talks about the conversion of private road to public road and supports a time limit on compensation claims which we are now suggesting be five years after the declaration is made under this section. I encourage all members to support the amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment. Section 210 sets up a mechanism for a council to convert a private road into a public road and it allows for compensation to be paid to the owner of the road either by agreement or by application to the Land and Valuation Court.

Clause 28 amends section 210 by providing that it is not only the owner but also the holders of other registered interests who may receive compensation. This is likely to affect any mortgagees or lessees of the land. Section 210(4) provides that any compensation on an application under subsection (3) will be assessed in accordance with the appropriate provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1969.

When this matter arises, compensation issues will always be determined promptly because the council must notify the owners of the land, as well as any holders of other registered legal interests in the land. The council may offer compensation but, if the person concerned is not satisfied with the council's offer, that person may make application to the Land and Valuation Court.

There are no provisions in section 210 of the Local Government Act that impose a time limit on applications to the Land and Valuation Court. If any time limits were considered necessary, then those limits would be included in the Land Acquisition Act 1969 or the Limitation of Actions Act 1936. However, no time limits have been specified because there is no need for them. It is not likely to be worthwhile for any person holding a legal interest in land to delay, for several years, before making an application for compensation.

The court also has its own rules limiting the time in which an action may be brought so, if a person was tardy in making an application, the court itself might refuse to accept the application. It would not make sense to introduce the concept of a time limit in section 210 confined only to mortgagees and the lessees when no time limit currently exists or is regarded as necessary for landowners. The government, therefore, opposes this amendment.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (10)
Bressington, A. Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L.
Lawson, R.D. Lensink, J.M.A. Parnell, M.
Ridgway, D.W. (teller) Schaefer, C.V. Wade, S.G.
Winderlich, D.N.
NOES (7)
Finnigan, B.V. Gago, G.E. (teller) Gazzola, J.M.
Holloway, P. Hood, D.G.E. Hunter, I.K.
Zollo, C.
PAIRS (4)
Brokenshire, R.L. Stephens, T.J.
Lucas, R.I. Wortley, R.P.

Majority of 3 for the ayes.

Amendment thus carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 29 to 37 passed.

Clause 38.

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

Page 17, after line 23 [clause 38, inserted section 271A(2)]—Insert:

(ab) must incorporate a statement setting out the reasons for the request; and

This provision provides the minister with the power to ask a council in writing for specific information. This provision is not intended to hinder the regular informal free flow of information between councils and the minister. Rather, it provides a specific mechanism that may be relied upon where the information being sought might be regarded as sensitive. New section 271A also protects the council if it divulges information to the minister that might be confidential or relevant to contractual matters.

The LGA sought an amendment that would require the minister to provide reasons before requesting information from councils. The LGA points out that most councils willingly cooperate, and I put on the record that indeed they do when I request information, and I freely acknowledged that point in my second reading speech on the bill.

I expect that in the future, as in the past, most requests for information will be made informally. New section 271A is not intended to be relied upon for the day-to-day informal contacts between my officers and various councils. It is expected to be of use only when the information being sought is sensitive in some way and the council might have some hesitation, perhaps fearing that it might be breaching a contract or a duty of confidence by handing the information over to me.

In these circumstances, I consider that it would create no difficulty for me to provide reasons when requesting the information. Usually, when information is requested, it is well understood why I am asking for it; it is usually because I have received information in a letter or by phone call or a media article raising a possible concern or issue.

When a matter concerning any local government is brought to my attention, it is helpful to have the council's perspective on the matter before I respond; therefore, I have accepted the LGA's view and placed on file amendment No. 8. This amendment provides that, when a minister formally requests information of a council under this provision, the minister must provide the council with reasons for the request.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 39.

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

Page 19, after line 15 [clause 39(5)]—Insert:

(6b) The Minister must, as part of the consultation process under subsection (6a), give the council a reasonable opportunity to make submissions to the Minister in relation to the matter unless the Minister considers that providing such an opportunity would be likely to undermine the investigation.

This clause is linked to the previous two clauses. Clause 39(5) also broadens the powers of an investigator to broaden inquiries into matters other than the ones that originally prompted the investigation.

The LGA sought an amendment so that, before an investigator could have the scope of an investigation broadened, an affected council would have an opportunity to make submissions to the minister. I have considered the LGA's view, and I am prepared to accept this idea; therefore, amendment No. 9 allows the council to make submissions about the possible widening of an inquiry. The amendment allows for an exception when it is considered that giving such an opportunity might undermine the investigation.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I move:

Page 19, after line 15—Insert:

(6ab) The investigator or investigators must, at the request of the Minister, provide to the Minister an interim report relating to the investigation, or to any aspect of the investigation specified by the Minister.

(6ac) The Minister must supply the council with a copy of a report provided under subsection (6b) and give the council a reasonable opportunity to make submissions to the Minister in relation to the matter unless the Minister considers that providing the report or such an opportunity would be likely to undermine the investigation.

This amendment simply makes it absolutely clear that the investigator can provide an interim report to the minister at the minister's request and that the minister supplies the council with a copy of the report to give the council a reasonable opportunity to make submissions to the minister in relation to the matter.

This is a Burnside amendment and the reasoning is that, since the investigation commenced at Burnside council, there have been ongoing problems, ongoing breaches of the act and—

The Hon. P. Holloway: Yes, someone keeps disrupting their meetings.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: Quite a number of those breaches have actually been by the council itself. According to the minister, the impression is clear that she does not believe that she has power to direct the council. I actually believe she does currently under the act, and also the terms of reference talk about provision of an interim report.

I argue that that interim report would trigger the minister's ability to make recommendations, give directions or even sack the council, but there seems to be some ambiguity about this in the mind of the minister. This amendment makes it absolutely clear that the minister could, in fact, request an interim report, and that would enable her to use those powers to make recommendations, give directions or sack the council.

As I believe I have mentioned a couple of times, the reason this is important is that we seem to have a situation where a council can be under investigation because it is likely to have seriously breached the provisions of the Local Government Act, but the minister appears to have no power over that council while it is under investigation, and that seems to be a strange situation. So, a council could do a whole range of things.

If a council really was to go feral while it was under investigation, it seems that, under the minister's interpretation of current provisions of the act, there would be nothing to stop the council from doing that, and that does not make a lot of sense to me. This amendment would simply make it absolutely clear that it is possible for the minister to get an interim report and then to act.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government strongly opposes this amendment, which would require that a person investigating a council must provide an interim report whenever requested by the minister. From time to time, it may be appropriate in some circumstances for an interim report to be provided, but the government does not consider it necessary to formalise any duty to provide an interim report.

The expectation that interim reports can be produced on demand would tend to put an investigator under undue pressure to produce a tentative result or perhaps a series of tentative results, rather than a fully considered, detailed case at hand and a considered recommendation at the end of the process leading to a positive and fair outcome for all parties concerned. It is called natural justice.

I have to say that it takes my breath away when I think about when a government starts to think of itself as judge and jury. The possibility of interim reports may be considered on a case by case basis, and that provision is available to us currently. It should be a matter of discretion and agreement between the minister and an appointed investigator, rather than a statutory obligation where the investigator must provide an interim report. For instance, I put on the record that, in relation to Burnside, the reason I have not requested an interim report at this point in time is that evidence is still being taken—the taking of evidence has not been completed. So, it would be unfair, unreasonable and unjust to require that the investigator must provide me with a report that is incomplete, and it would be very easy for that to be construed in all sorts of ways.

It is important that due process be completed—that an investigator be able, independently and at arm's length from government, to make an assessment about what is required to conduct and complete an investigation in order to come to final recommendations. It is called due process and natural justice. It is unreasonable that an investigator be required to give a report on unfinished evidence because that report and any recommendations or outcomes from that could be misconstrued unfairly.

The process of an investigation requires that evidence be taken and considered and that natural justice be afforded to those people where evidence may be found against them. This investigatory process not only allows for the investigator to complete their evidence but also allows for the investigator to prepare allegations and then put those allegations to those people who are the subject of those allegations and allow them the opportunity to respond. That is called natural justice. It is only after that that the investigator would make their final recommendations.

I cannot stress strongly enough that we have set up a process at arm's length from the minister to ensure that the appropriate investigations are carried out and that adequate expertise is applied to that investigation. We now have an honourable member wanting the government to interfere with the process and, before evidence may be fully completed and before due process and natural justice is done—that is, allegations are put and they have an opportunity to explain—force an investigator to provide an interim report. It is fraught with problems and I do not believe it enhances the integrity of the process at all; in fact, it will serve only to undermine it.

We have set up a process at arm's length from government to ensure that these things are assessed and investigated on a fair and reasonable basis. Let the investigators get on with doing their job. Currently there is a provision that, where it is considered appropriate, ministers can ask for an interim report, but to require that an investigator must provide an interim report is extremely bad process.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have been advised by the shadow minister, Mark Goldsworthy, that the opposition will support the amendment.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I will weigh in on this amendment, because I think the minister has overreacted to the way it would be applied. This amendment may be applied to an inquiry or investigation with very complex terms of reference dealing with multiple issues. There may well be five issues at stake, one of which is complex and time-consuming and for which it will take months to gather evidence, but four of which could be disposed of very quickly.

The first thing to note is that the request for an interim report will come from the minister. If the minister, through discussions with the investigator, or whatever other means, discovers that four of the five issues are complete and that there is no more work to do and nothing to stop those being reported on, the minister can request an interim report on those matters. Whether it is 'must' or 'may'—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The honourable leader's interjection suggests that they will do that anyway. The point is that, while the present minister remains in the role, she has clearly indicated that she will not exercise any right under this section; so this section will have no work to do under this minister, because if the minister does not request an interim report it will not be given. I also do not believe it is reasonable to say that just because an interim report is requested it will be rushed or botched, or will deny natural justice. If the investigator is worth his or her salt, if they have not finished their work and are asked for an interim report that interim report will say, 'Sorry, minister; not finished.' That will be the interim report.

So, whilst I can accept that there is an argument that this may not be necessary, I do not believe it will lead to the types of harm that the minister outlined; I cannot see that it will cause those problems. However, if the minister is minded to get a report then I think the amendment is sensible, because it does provide that a council has a reasonable opportunity to consider it. So, weighing up all the issues, I am inclined to support the amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: There are currently provisions that allow, if four of the five complex issues outlined by the honourable member had been completed, for a minister to ask for an interim report, and that would be done. I think those provisions are already there to help us deal with those particular matters; we do not need an intervention that requires that the investigator must provide an interim report.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I would like to respond to a number of comments the minister made. There is an element of natural justice built into this amendment in subclause (6c), which provides:

The minister must supply the council with a copy of a report provided under subsection (6b) and give the council a reasonable opportunity to make submissions to the minister in relation to the matter unless the minister considers that providing the report or such an opportunity would be likely to undermine the investigation.

So, there is provision for the council to have an opportunity to respond to an interim report. In that sense, I think that is the natural justice the minister is seeking. The minister has said—and it is the first time I have heard her clearly say this, and I have been pursuing this for probably three months—that current provisions allow for an interim report.

It is the very reluctance of the minister to exercise those provisions that has led me to make this much more explicit. The reason for that is, as the Hon. Mark Parnell said, there may be a number of matters being considered by an investigation, some of them may need further investigation, others may be clear cut, and others may need to be dealt with fairly quickly.

I call this the Burnside amendment. The example that stands out is the issue of the chief executive officer of Burnside council: is he entitled to be there or not? We have legal opinion saying not, we have councillors saying not, we apparently have a legal opinion, unsighted, that says it is okay, and apparently the investigator himself raised the question. We still do not know whether the minister has an answer from the council relating to that. It is an important question that should be cleared up.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: That has been put on the record. What are you talking about?

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I will go back and look at that. I think that would have been at least seven weeks after the question. I will come back to that; I will pursue that. Under a situation like that it would be useful for a minister to have a power to give directions to a council, if there was a serious problem. That power comes from a report. If the final date of the report is pushed out, then being able to have an interim report is quite useful.

In terms of undue pressure on the investigator, again I think that depends on appointing good investigators. An interim report—again, the Hon. Mark Parnell started developing this argument—might say, 'No problem. There is nothing here to worry about and no action for you to take,' or it might identify something that needed urgent action.

Because the minister's ability to make recommendations, direct a council or dismiss a council, depends on the receipt of a report, it makes sense to have some way of fast tracking that in case it is needed. The obvious way to do it is with an interim report. Given that there has been a reluctance to exercise that or, even until tonight, to acknowledge that that was a possibility under the act, I think it is worth making it explicit.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Indeed, the legal advice that we received was from the mayor of Burnside, which I have clarified and put on the record. So, it was legal advice referred to us by the mayor.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (10)
Bressington, A. Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L.
Lawson, R.D. Lensink, J.M.A. Parnell, M.
Ridgway, D.W. Schaefer, C.V. Wade, S.G.
Winderlich, D.N. (teller)
NOES (7)
Finnigan, B.V. Gago, G.E. (teller) Gazzola, J.M.
Holloway, P. Hood, D.G.E. Hunter, I.K.
Zollo, C.
PAIRS (4)
Lucas, R.I. Wortley, R.P.
Stephens, T.J. Brokenshire, R.L.

Majority of 3 for the ayes.

Amendment thus carried.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I move:

Page 19, after line 15—Insert:

(6) Section 272—After subsection (8) insert:

(8a) The Minister must also cause a copy of the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within 6 sitting days after it is presented to the Minister under subsection (7).

This amendment simply would require that a copy of the investigator's report be laid before both houses of parliament within six sitting days after it is presented to the minister under subsection (7). My initial amendment had this being referred to the Legislative Review Committee. In consultation with the LGA, they prefer it to be laid before both houses of parliament. It is a very simple issue of ensuring openness and accountability in terms of the findings of the report, rather than having it disappear from view.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government does not find this amendment particularly helpful. However, we will not be opposing it.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 40.

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

Page 19, lines 23 and 24—Delete subclause (2)

This amendment seeks to amend section 273, which relates to reports on investigations. The LGA seeks this amendment to ensure that councils have the right to provide reasons for not implementing a recommendation from the Ombudsman before the minister takes any action. The amendment seeks to delete subclause (2), which relates to the section which, in the view of the opposition, provides the minister with powers that are too broad. It will allow the council a chance to provide reasons for not implementing a report.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: This amendment is pretty much consequential; however, we do not support it. It is not possible to guess what might be included in any future report from the Ombudsman, but we believe there must be sufficient power for a minister to respond appropriately to the circumstances of each case. It may be appropriate to issue directions that do not necessarily fit into the existing labels of rectifying a matter or preventing a recurrence of the act, failure or irregularity.

It is only a matter of common sense that, in so responding, the minister's orders should be in terms that the minister thinks fit. This does not represent an opportunity for the minister to make an open slather approach and start dictating to council. It is not true to suggest, as the LGA has done in its submission, that this amendment would lead to the minister's having unfettered power. We think it is not appropriate, and therefore we oppose the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: The minister has a further amendment to clause 40. Would she like to move her amendment now?

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

Page 19, line 24 [clause 40(2)]—After 'thinks fit' insert:

(after taking into account the contents of a relevant report)

This amendment addresses the minister's power to issue directions to a council. If the minister considers that a council has failed to respond appropriately to a recommendation of the Ombudsman or that a council has failed to address appropriately a matter that formed the basis of a request under section 271B, the minister's powers to issue a direction need to be broad enough to respond to these specific matters.

It is only a matter of common sense that, in so responding, the minister's orders should be in terms the minister thinks fit. This does not represent an opportunity for the minister to take an open slather approach and start dictating to councils. Notwithstanding this, this amendment clarifies that the power can be exercised only after taking into account the contents of a report under section 273(2).

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that all words in subclause (2) down to and including 'thinks fit' in line 24 stand as printed. It would be nice, at this hour of the night, for people to indicate to the Chair whether or not they are supporting amendments, because it is very hard to call on the voices if people do not let us know what they are doing. That question was in support of the Hon. Mr Ridgway's amendment.

An honourable member interjecting:

The CHAIRMAN: Those questions should be asked when the amendments are moved. The minister has a further amendment to the clause that will be put if this is not agreed to. Do members understand that? If members do not understand, they can always ask questions of the Chair. Members can always be happy to indicate to the Chair what they are supporting, because it will save ringing the bells, divisions and a lot of time.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Family First will be supporting the amendments.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Greens will be supporting the amendments.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway's amendment carried; the Hon. G.E. Gago's amendment negatived; clause as amended passed.

New clause 40A.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I move:

Page 19, after line 30—Insert:

40A—Insertion of section 273A

After section 273 insert:

273A—Declaration of caretaker period

(1) In this section—

asset means anything that must be treated as an asset for the purposes of the financial statements of a council;

caretaker period in relation to a council means a period commencing on a date fixed under subjection (2) and ending on a date determined by the Minister in the particular case (being a determination made on or after the presentation of the report to the Minister at the conclusion of the investigation under section 272(7));

lease includes an agreement for lease, but does not include a lease entered into as a result of the exercise of a right or option to renew a lease entered into before the commencement of a caretaker period.

(2) If the Minister, after receiving an interim report under section 272(6b), considers that the circumstances justify the exercise of powers under this section, the Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, fix a date from which the council will be subject to the operation of this section (the beginning of the caretaker period).

(3) Subject to this section, if during a caretaker period the council to which the period relates—

(a) enters into a contract for the appointment of a chief executive officer; or

(b) enters into a contract—

(i) the terms of which require (either unconditionally or subject to conditions) the council to make a payment exceeding $100,000, or payments exceeding $100,000 in total; or

(ii) the terms of which entitle the council to receive a payment exceeding $100,000, or payments exceeding $100,000, on account of the disposal by the council of an asset of the council; or

(c) enters into a lease under which the rent payable by the lessee in any period exceeds $100,000,

without the approval of the Minister, the contract or lease is liable to be voided by the Minister.

(4) However, subsection (3) does not apply to—

(a) a contract or lease entered into by the council to give effect to any expenditure or revenue measure contained in a budget adopted by the council before the commencement of the caretaker period; or

(b) a contract or lease of a kind excluded from the operation of that subsection by the regulations.

(5) An approval granted by the Minister for the purposes of this section has no effect unless the council had, before submitting the relevant contract or lease to the Minister for approval, resolved that it would, subject to the approval of the Minister, enter into the contract or lease.

(6) If—

(a) the Minister voids a contract or lease under this section; and

(b) the Minister or the council incurs a liability by reason of or in relation to the contract or lease,

the Minister or the council (as the case may be) may recover the whole of the amount of the liability as a debt from the persons who were members of the council at the time that the contract was made or lease was entered into or made, or from any of them, or from any one of them.

(7) The Minister must publish a copy of the Minister's determination fixing the end of a caretaker period under this section in the Gazette.

This makes provision for a caretaker period for a council under investigation. However, that caretaker period is only triggered if the minister, after receiving an interim report, considers that circumstances justify the exercise of powers under this section. The minister would then, by notice in the gazette, fix a date from which the council would be subject to the operation of this section. The caretaker period does not mean that the council could not do certain things: it would just mean it would require the approval of the minister for a contract or a lease.

There are exceptions. For example, contracts or a lease entered into by a council before the commencement of the caretaker period would not be affected, and other kinds of contracts or leases could be excluded by regulation.

This would be a very rarely used section. It would apply only if a council was seriously incompetent, seriously corrupt, seriously dysfunctional or for some reason unable to carry out its job. It is something that would be very rarely used but, again, recent events have caused me to believe that there is a need for something like this, otherwise councils can make all sorts of far-reaching and long-lasting decisions—that is, councils that are under investigation, which is not something that is done lightly. I think it is worth reminding members that the last council that was subject to this kind of investigation, I believe, was Victor Harbor council something like 15 or 19 years ago. So, even the exercise of an investigation is very infrequent. Within that infrequent sort of event we would have the ability to introduce a caretaker period, which I imagine would happen even more infrequently.

I am sure that in her response the minister will point out the difference between the caretaker period during an election, which I voted against, and contrast that with this. I think there is a world of difference between a council operating well and normally, and about to face the verdict of the people in any event, and a council that is under investigation. I think they are two different sorts of contexts. I commend the motion to members.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government does not support this amendment, which we consider unnecessary. I remind honourable members of the hypocrisy of the honourable member, who voted to water down caretaker provisions during the debate on the elections bill but who now wants to hamstring councils from their ordinary day-to-day business affairs.

In a nutshell, there are three reasons why we oppose this amendment. Firstly, there is the general presumption in law that a person—God forbid—is innocent until proven guilty; that a council that is under investigation is not considered to be incompetent or to have lost its capacity to undertake government just because of an investigation. Secondly, an investigation into a council might be quite narrow, and that could amount to significant overkill. Thirdly, an investigation, whether it is broad or narrow, can often take (and very often does so) very many months, and it is impractical to suggest that a council should be prevented from conducting its normal business for many months at a time. This amendment would make it much harder for a council to deliver normal services to its ratepayers and residents for a prolonged period of time, and for those reasons we oppose it.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the amendment. I note that proposed new subsection 273A(2) of the amendment provides:

If the minister, after receiving an interim report under section 272(6b), considers that the circumstances justify the exercise of powers under this section, the minister may, by notice in the Gazette, fix a date from which a council will be subject to the operation of this section...

So, it is clearly in the hands of the minister. The opposition does not see that that is unreasonable. It is clearly in the hands of the minister of the day, and we support the amendment.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I support the intent of the amendment, and I support the amendment up until the point where I think it falls over, and that is at the very end. I accept the honourable mover's premise here that it is the report that is the trigger for the caretaker period, not the fact of an investigation; there has to be a report showing something is wrong that triggers basically a bit of a brake on the council's unfettered spending power. However, the part that I cannot support is the part that says that if the minister voids a contract because the council has unlawfully entered into a contract in a caretaker period, and if there are costs and damages that result, every elected member of that council is liable jointly to have to pay those damages regardless of how they voted.

I think there is a principle there. When we have elected members exercising their duty, the fact of their having made a mistake and having improperly entered a contract in a caretaker period should not mean that the elected members become personally liable for the damages. When you think of a contract being rescinded because the minister has voided it, compensation will be sought, and I do not believe it is appropriate for the elected members to have to pay.

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

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Family First is not persuaded either.

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

New clause negatived.

Clause 41.

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

Page 20, after line 19 [clause 41(4)]—Insert:

(7b) The minister must, as part of the consultation process under subsection (7a), give the council or councils a reasonable opportunity to make submissions to the minister in relation to the matter unless the minister considers that providing such an opportunity would be likely to undermine the investigation.

This is an amendment to section 274, council subsidiaries. It matches a comparable amendment to clause 39. The LGA sought an amendment to require the minister to consult with the subsidiary and the subsidiary's constituent councils before approving any extension to the scope of the investigation. I have considered the LGA's view and I am prepared to accept this idea.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that the opposition supports the amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 42 to 45 passed.

New clause 45A.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I move:

Page 21, after line 34—Insert:

45A—Insertion of section 302A

After section 302 insert:

302A—Whistleblowing

Each council must ensure that a member of the staff of the council (with qualifications prescribed by the regulations) is designated as a responsible officer for the council for the purposes of the Whistleblowers Protection Act 1993.

This amendment mirrors the Public Sector Management Act and ensures that a member of staff of a council is designated as a responsible officer for the council for the purposes of the Whistleblowers Protection Act.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that the opposition supports the new clause.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes the new clause because we believe it is misconceived. If the honourable member believes that there is a problem with the operation of the Whistleblowers Protection Act 1993, I am not sure why the honourable member is not seeking to amend that act.

The Hon. A. Bressington: You will not entertain amending the Whistleblowers Protection Act.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I believe that, if you have the numbers to make this change, you would have the numbers to amend that act. We just think it is odd that the honourable member is amending this act rather than the Whistleblowers Protection Act.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I support the new clause.

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

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Neither will Family First.

The committee divided on the new clause:

AYES (9)
Bressington, A. Dawkins, J.S.L. Lawson, R.D.
Lensink, J.M.A. Parnell, M. Ridgway, D.W.
Schaefer, C.V. Wade, S.G. Winderlich, D.N. (teller)
NOES (8)
Darley, J.A. Finnigan, B.V. Gago, G.E.
Gazzola, J.M. Holloway, P. Hood, D.G.E.
Hunter, I.K. Zollo, C.
PAIRS (4)
Lucas, R.I. Wortley, R.P.
Stephens, T.J. Brokenshire, R.L.

Majority of 1 for the ayes.

New clause thus inserted.

Clause 46 passed.

New clause 46A.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I move:

Page 22, after line 5—Insert:

46A—Amendment of Schedule 3—Register of Interests—Form of returns

Schedule 3, clause 2(3)—After paragraph (a) insert:

(ab) the name and business address of any employer of the member and, if the member is employed, the name of the office or place where the member works or a concise description of the nature of the member's work; and

This amendment amends the register of interests requirements of the act from the current provision that simply refers to the source of income of a councillor to requiring the name and business address of any employer of the member and, if the member is employed, the name of the office or place where the member works or a concise description of the nature of the member's work. This is a Charles Sturt amendment and another council that I will not name just yet. The situation with Charles Sturt shows at least the theoretical potential for a council to be taken over by a political party. In another context it could be the Liberal Party, or it might be the Greens, but so far the issue raising this provision is in relation to the Labor Party and that theoretical potential that they may have sought to take over.

The current register of interests simply requires that people put their source of income. A council that I will refer to soon has a surprisingly large number of employees employed by the Department of Treasury and Finance, which is also the employer of electorate officers and political advisers. So, it is clearly possible for members of a political party (in effect, employees of a political party through their provision of direct services to a member of a political party) to be on the council but disguise the fact that they are, in effect, working for a political party. I do not think that is an acceptable situation. I do not think most South Australians would accept that; they would want the transparency and openness. That is what this quite simple amendment to the register of interests would give them: it would clearly identify who people worked for.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that the opposition will be supporting this amendment. Members would be aware that, as a result of a number of corruption allegations in Victoria, the Victorian government moved to make it illegal for ministerial staffers to be on council. This is not making it illegal but it is making sure that people are declaring who they work for. The opposition thinks in terms of being open and accountable. It is not excluding people and, whether it applies to members of any political party, I think the electors of that council have a right to know who is paying the person who is on council. So, the opposition has no problems at all in supporting this amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government supports this amendment.

New clause inserted.

Clauses 47 and 48 passed.

Schedule 1.

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

Page 22—

Line 21—Delete 'provision' and substitute: 'provisions'

After line 21—Insert:

a1—Interpretation

In this Schedule—

principal Act means the Local Government Act 1999.

Page 23—

Line 20—Delete the definition of 'principal Act'

After line 20—Insert:

2—Transitional provision—Rebate of rates

Despite the operation of section 161 of the principal Act, the rebate on rates on land being predominantly used for supported accommodation that consists of accommodation for persons provided by housing associations registered under the South Australian Co-operative and Community Housing Act 1991 may, with respect to the following financial years, be as follows (if the council so decides):

(a) 2010/2011—25% (or, at the discretion of the council, a higher rebate);

(b) 2011/2012—50% (or, at the discretion of the council, a higher rebate).

These amendments all relate to the transitional provision, which I have spoken to at length. That relates to the supported accommodation rebates and it allows individual councils to have discretion to implement those rebates in a phased approach in an attempt to reduce any imposts on them. The arrangements are for a 25 per cent, 50 per cent or 75 per cent rebate, with the total being 75 per cent. It is discretionary, so councils can decide for themselves whether or not that arrangement is helpful.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The opposition supports the amendments.

Amendments carried; schedule as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

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) (21:15): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH (21:16): I would like to make a few brief remarks. I would like to thank members for their support of my amendments. I would also like to thank members for their opposition to my amendments relating to caretaker provisions, because the Hon. Mark Parnell was quite right: I would not have wanted the liabilities from a decision of council to fall on elected members. I think that would have been a terrible thing. So, thank you for preventing me from achieving that, although I am sure it would have been fixed in the lower house.

Finally, we make these sorts of rules about local government because we have some degree of power over them. I would love to be able to enforce the same sort of openness at the state government level. If re-elected, I will try to import certain sections of the Local Government Act into other laws regulating the state government to get some greater degree of openness. I probably will not have a lot of success, but I pursue this course with local government, not out of any desire to persecute local government or to in any way imply that it is any less worthy than any other level of government, but simply because I am in a position to do so and, to the extent that I am able to, I will do the same with the state government.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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