HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-10-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

COPPER COAST DISTRICT COUNCIL

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (16:20): I move:

That this council:

1. Notes the continuing concern by many Wallaroo residents about the sale of council-owned land to Leasecorp and the serious allegations raised both publicly and in confidence about the fairness of the process by which this sale was conducted;

2. Notes that the Minister for State/Local Government Relations is conducting an investigation into the District Council of the Copper Coast;

3. Calls on the Minister for State/Local Government Relations to ensure that her investigation of these complaints is wide-ranging and thorough and includes the collection of evidence from the various parties who have either publicly or privately made serious allegations about the conduct of council; and

4. Recognises that emphasis in the Ombudsman's Act on complainants who are directly impacted by an administrative decision limits the ability of the Ombudsman to investigate, in the public interest, concerns about maladministration in local government.

I think all members will see this motion as uncontroversial, but I am also equally sure that members can see where it is leading. It is an attempt to put the spotlight on events in the District Council of the Copper Coast and to prepare this council for stronger measures down the track, should they become necessary. I think it also highlights, yet again, the contortions that our institutions are forced into because we do not have an ICAC.

Before I explain my motion, I want to put into context what I know is seen by some as a sustained campaign for accountability on the Copper Coast. I emphasise that I am a friend of local government. I see it as being one of the most democratic forms because it is so much closer to the people than other forms.

The Hon. R.P. Wortley interjecting:

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: No; not all of them; some of them actually had motions for it. I also believe that most councils—the great majority of them—do a good job in some areas, and climate change is one example where the best councils, in fact, have been light years ahead of state and federal governments. Local government is not alone, however, in having a dubious relationship with developers—which is what I have been pursuing over the past six months. I think of the fees for afternoon teas and dinners, drinks with ministers and the campaign contributions to the major parties.

I also sympathise with the urge to develop. In regional areas we have seen a drift to the city, and if we can revitalise some of the regional areas, that population is more likely to stay there and, in fact, we may see a drift in the other direction.

Wallaroo (the site of much of my discussions in recent times) has been a very disadvantaged area. Its blighted industrial foreshore has been crying out for imaginative development and only a big developer is up to that task: it is beyond, I think, the expertise of a council of that size. But, despite the need for jobs and investment in country areas, we cannot allow or justify slipshod processes; nor can we deny the community its right of consultation and its right to have a say.

Paragraph 1 of this motion calls on this council to note the concerns of some Wallaroo residents in relation to the sale of land to Leasecorp for a shopping centre in that town. It is self-explanatory: I do not think anyone could deny that there is widespread and ongoing concern about this particular issue. Yesterday two groups of protesters from Wallaroo gathered on the steps of Parliament House; one in favour of that development and the other one opposed to it.

On 12 September, 500 people—more than 30 per cent of the population of Wallaroo—attended a town hall meeting to protest against the Leasecorp development and, in particular, the inclusion of Woolworths in that development. At least 1,600 people—more than half the population of Wallaroo—have signed a petition opposing that development. Just to put that in perspective: a similar meeting in Adelaide would have attracted 300,000-plus people. The Beatles might have gone close to that back in 1964 and, comparing the petition, it would have collected 600,000 signatures in Adelaide. So this is a huge issue in Wallaroo. In addition to the serious and the sustained questions I have been asking about the fairness of the process, I have been approached by a number of people who feel that they cannot publicly speak out because they would lose future business, or because of personal links with the council and council members. I have passed on those details to relevant authorities, but I cannot mention them here without breaking an undertaking to keep matters in-confidence.

However, Mr Bob Soang, the General Manager of Drakes Foodland, Wallaroo, has been a consistent and public critic of the council's proposals. He says that he offered the most for the land; his proposal was consistent with the development plan for Owen Terrace, Wallaroo; and the successful tenderer, Leasecorp, was the only bidder that received a second chance to increase its bid.

He further goes on to say that council's explanations for its decision have been inconsistent and contradictory. At the beginning, the council emphasised that the nature of the development was the factor and not the price. However, latterly, the council has began arguing that, in fact, Mr Soang's bid would have cost the council more. You could say Mr Soang has a self interest in this. His company wanted the land and was not selected and, on the other hand, he has very little prospect of reversing the council's decision. If the Woolworths store is built, it is quite clear that the Foodland in Wallaroo will close down. So, yes, he has a lot to lose, and he does not hide that fact, but I think his complaints are very credible.

Well placed sources in the Copper Coast support Mr Soang's version of events and have highlighted what they saw as a sudden change in the council's decision. The various changes in the council's arguments, alleged by Mr Soang, are also verified by looking through the Yorke Peninsula Country Times, a newspaper well worth having a look at. The community debate that is going on about some of the proposals of this council and another council in that area are really a delight to read, because so often in the city we do not get this level of involvement and commitment.

I believe also that the council's own documents support Mr Soang's case, or at least indicate that the council does not understand how its own policy and development plans relate to this important project. In a nutshell, the council selected a proposal that would be at variance with half a dozen provisions of the Copper Coast Development Plan. The development application will be assessed by the Development Assessment Commission, which I hope will force some significant amendments.

I am not calling on members to take a position either way on whether or not there ought to be a Woolworths but simply to acknowledge that serious allegations have been made and that they should be investigated. The very fact that the Minister for State/Local Government Relations is holding such an inquiry suggests that the government itself recognises that there is some sort of a problem. As members would be aware, that investigation is now proceeding, and the Minister for State/Local Government Relations made a ministerial statement about that in this place yesterday. However, I observe that the Office for State and Local Government Relations is not a statutory judicial body of the type that is really set up to carry out this sort of inquiry.

I have had a discussion with the director and staff of that office—and I thank them for that briefing and discussion and for their openness—but it is clear to me that this is not a key role for them. Their first instinct, I would say, would be to play a constructive role in helping the council to deal with processes and cultural weaknesses that have led to this problem, and that is exactly what they told me they are going to do. It is understandable and it is appropriate, but it does suggest that the office—and therefore the minister—may not be in a position to get to the bottom of this problem, and I suspect that they may not even have the resources to do that. The staff of that office are happy to receive and investigate complaints, but they are not out in the field talking to the critics of the council or to people such as local traders, who might have similar experiences with that council.

Paragraph 3 of my motion is designed to push the office in that direction. It may be that members think that this is asking too much of them, and I will listen to the minister's response, particularly in that regard. Paragraph 4. states:

Recognises that emphasis in the Ombudsman's Act on complainants who are directly impacted by an administrative decision limits the ability of the Ombudsman to investigate, in the public interest, concerns about maladministration in local government.

This is based on both the strengths and weaknesses of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has the powers of a royal commission and, in the absence of an ICAC, this seems to be the logical place to look for redress. However, the Ombudsman's Act has a major flaw: the way in which it limits the grounds for complaint works against the public interest. Section 17(2) provides:

The ombudsman may refuse to entertain a complaint, or, having commenced to investigate a matter raised in a complaint, may refuse to continue the investigation if of the opinion—

(a) that the matter raised in the complaint is trivial; or

(b) that the complaint is frivolous or vexatious or is not made in good faith; or

(c) the complainant or the person on whose behalf the complaint was made has not a sufficient personal interest in the matter raised in the complaint;

I think we would all agree that the Ombudsman must be able to reject trivial or vexatious complaints but (c) enables complaints from a person who does not have sufficient personal interest in a matter to be dismissed. In fact, a number of such complaints from people on the Copper Coast —both about the Wallaroo supermarket and other matters—have been dealt with in this way.

The problem is that often people who are directly affected might not be in a position to complain. They might be related to someone who could be the subject of investigation or they might depend on future business from the council. I can assure members that there are people on the Copper Coast who have not complained because of either or both of these reasons.

We have, with the Ombudsman's Act a watchdog. We have given him teeth but we have made him blind in one eye. At the moment I am in the process of drafting legislation to remedy this problem. I will meet with the Ombudsman to discuss this matter with him. In the meantime, there is one way of getting to the bottom of the goings-on in the Copper Coast: this council can require the Ombudsman to investigate under section 14(1) of the Ombudsman's Act, which provides:

Subject to this section, either House of Parliament, or any committee of either of those Houses, or a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament, may refer to the Ombudsman, for investigation and report, any matter that is within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and which that House or committee considers should be investigated by the Ombudsman.

If necessary, I will bring a motion to require the Ombudsman to investigate events on the Copper Coast. As I say, if necessary—it may not come to that. However, we are at this point, I suggest, because in South Australia we do not have an ICAC, a dedicated anti-corruption body. In the absence of one we are forced to put different tools together with the legislative equivalent of chewing gum and string.

Yesterday, the minister outlined a range of measures to improve local government accountability across the board, and I welcome those; they are a move in the right direction, but they are certainly no substitute for an ICAC. The minister, despite doing that, will not have the same powers as the Ombudsman. I do not believe those measures have any relevance for this motion, although they may have some impact on future discussions about the role of the Ombudsman.

This motion does no more than state some facts. There is concern about the Copper Coast, and serious allegations have been made about council processes. Those concerns can be resolved only by a proper investigation. That is the only way that we can either clear this council's reputation or hold it accountable. This motion also effectively says that I do not believe that the Minister for State/Local Government Relations has the tools to do this; however, I am willing to give her investigation more time. Finally, the motion says that the Ombudsman has some powers but that we have legislatively blinded him to broader considerations of the public interest.

I urge members to support this motion and, at same time, I alert them to the fact that I will be bringing more substantial measures before this chamber about this and other related local government issues.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.

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