HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-07-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

BURNSIDE CITY COUNCIL

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH (16:14): I move:

That this council—

1. Affirms the important role played by local government in delivering and planning services, engaging South Australians in democratic processes and advocating for communities.

2. Notes—

(a) the evidence of mounting conflict among elected members of the Burnside City Council including the resignation of the Chief Executive Officer, subsequent withdrawal of the resignation, legal action taken by some council members against another council member and complaints about code of conduct violations;

(b) the mounting allegations of corruption and allegations about the influence of an unelected person on the Burnside City Council;

(c) the fact that the reappointment of Burnside City Council Chief Executive Officer, Neil Jacobs, may have been in breach of the Local Government Act 1999;

(d) that under the Local Government Act 1999 investigators appointed by the minister are able to require persons to answer questions an provide documents; and

(e) that under the Local Government Act 1999 the minister has power to investigate breaches of any other Act thereby potentially enabling the minister to investigate allegations of corruption;

and therefore—

3. Commends the Minister for State/Local Government Relations, the Hon. Gail Gago, for immediately commencing the process of a full investigation of the Burnside City Council under section 272 of the Local Government Act 1999.

4. Strongly advises that an investigation of the Burnside City Council actively seeks—

(a) interviews and submissions from:

i. current staff and elected members;

ii. staff who have resigned from Burnside City Council since November 2006;

iii. residents of Burnside City Council;

iv. developers and other businesses that have had dealings with Burnside City Council; and

(b) consideration of complaints to the Minister for State/Local Government Relations, the Ombudsman and the Police Anti-Corruption Branch that have been lodged between 2004 and 2006.

I move this motion with two aims: first, to continue to pressure the Minister for State/Local Government Relations to initiate an investigation of Burnside council and, secondly, to add my voice and arguments to ensure that any investigation include consideration of allegations of corruption and undue influence of an unelected member of the community on Burnside council.

I have gone in hard on this issue because my experience of the handling of the controversy around the District Council of the Copper Coast last year has given me no confidence in how our authorities handle such allegations. I will briefly remind members of some of the salient details of the case of the District Council of the Copper Coast or, at least, the aspects of the investigation that I found less than satisfactory.

The Office for State/Local Government Relations was called in to make inquiries into allegations that the District Council of the Copper Coast had given favourable treatment to Lease Corp in the sale of land for a shopping centre. It somehow managed to conduct these inquiries without talking to either Mr Bob Soang, the manager of Drake's Foodland (who felt he was the injured party in this process and who took his complaints to the media and the ACCC), and Mr Tommy Tonkin, a councillor who also criticised the sale process and other aspects of the District Council of the Copper Coast.

The Office for State/Local Government Relations did work closely with the council but did not really talk to its critics. Earlier this year, the minister tabled a report from the Crown Solicitor's Office which, apparently, cleared the council of any wrongdoing but, of course, no-one gets to see that report so we have no idea of how broadly or how deeply it looked.

I was in contact with residents who had made complaints to the Ombudsman, some of which I thought raised quite important and well founded issues of public policy. However, the Ombudsman tended to reject them if they were not from people who were personally affected by the issue they were complaining about. In other words, if you were not directly disadvantaged by a council decision, if you were not a business that had missed out on a contract or if you were not a person whose development had been unjustly refused, the Ombudsman would not be interested even though important issues were being raised.

The police Anti-Corruption Branch also conducted an investigation of the Copper Coast last year. I do not know whether or not that has concluded, but the issue that came out of that investigation was that it could not compel people to appear. So, it appears to me that our watchdogs are blinded, blinkered and muzzled in this state and, hence, the need to have recourse to parliament. In the absence of effective or sufficiently resourced or wide-ranging investigative bodies, members of the community have to have recourse to members of parliament.

I believe that the first of my aims will be achieved and that there will be an investigation of the Burnside city council. It is clear that that council is verging on being dysfunctional. This is indicated by the minister's own letter to Mayor Wendy Greiner on 2 July 2009 which seeks the council's response on the following concerns:

the failure of council to resolve the friction between elected members, notwithstanding a new code of conduct and independent investigation and mediation;

the further deterioration in relationships between parties despite the various actions taken by the council as evidenced by current litigation between elected members;

the circumstances surrounding the CEO's resignation and reinstatement and the effect this may be having on council's ability to bring an impartial mind to their deliberations;

recent council meetings having to be adjourned due to a lack of quorum apparently caused by members abandoning meetings before their close;

suggested leaking of confidential information;

and bullying and harassment between elected members in meetings, between elected members and members of the public gallery and between members and staff of council.

Since that letter was sent, the council has called the police twice to force residents to leave the gallery, after they refused to leave when the council moved to go into confidence. Given all this, consider how this council would go about attracting staff or signing a contract at the moment. In fact, it has been said that one of the tenderers for the Chelsea Cinema is not willing to hold discussions with council because confidentiality cannot be guaranteed. Now, that may or may not be good news for the Chelsea but it is not good news for any other transactions the council might be involved in, or for its reputation, or for its ability to govern the community of Burnside.

It would be very difficult for the minister not to proceed with an investigation. That would be very hard to explain, especially since this is the second time in less than a year that the minister has been at this point. On 1 August 2008, the Chief Executive of PIRSA (Geoff Knight) who was, at that time, responsible for state and local government relations within the bureaucracy, wrote a letter to the Mayor of Burnside (Wendy Greiner) which summarises a number of complaints against Burnside council and in which he states:

I have considered a number of possible conciliatory interventions but it seems more appropriate to initiate a course of action that requires the council to take responsibility and to demonstrate that the elected body can work together constructively and with the administration. Should this not be possible, consideration will be given to recommending to the minister an investigation pursuant to section 272 of the Local Government Act. However, before I recommend this course of action I am providing the council with an opportunity to make submissions in relation to the allegations made and summarised above.

That was dated 1 August 2008, almost a year ago. I will return to the letter shortly. Most of my remarks today will concentrate on my second aim, and that is to make sure that any investigation of the Burnside city council is wide-ranging and leaves no stone unturned. I think this is important because it seems that the minister is trying to limit the scope of any investigation.

If you look at the minister's letter to council (which I read out before), it appears that there is an attempt to restrict the investigation to what might be called 'council behaving badly'—the levels of conflict and what that means for the functioning of the council. You will note that neither the minister's statement to the council or the media nor her answers to questions have referred to the concerns about allegations of corruption or undue influence at the Burnside city council.

However, over the past two years the minister has received numerous complaints about this matter, and they have centred around a person whose name has already entered the public domain—Mr Rick Powers. Residents have been calling out his name in meetings and I have personally spoken to councillors who say that this person (Mr Rick Powers) is a problem in that he is trying to control council.

In my assessment, I believe that there are three factions on Burnside council: there is a majority group, what you might call the Jacobsen/Gilbert group, and a couple of what you might call independents. I have spoken to people from each of these groups. Given these deeply felt, widespread and now public concerns, why would this aspect of the problems at Burnside be omitted from any consideration of investigation by the minister? This is even stranger when you consider that less than a year ago the government was (again, in that letter I cited before) on the verge of an investigation looking at the alleged—and I stress it is alleged at this point; he has not been proved guilty of anything— influence of Mr Rick Powers.

A letter from Mr Geoff Knight to Mayor Wendy Greiner of 1 August—which I quoted before and which I will now quote at greater length—states:

The Minister for State/Local Government Relations has received several complaints with respect to a range of matters concerning the City of Burnside…including allegations of maladministration. The Whistleblowers Protection Act 1993 protects the identity of complainants and places legislative obligations upon me not to divulge anything that would disclose their identity. The minister has directed that I advise her and manage the complaints on her behalf.

Firstly, I am in a position to advise that the information provided suggests prima facie that the nature of the allegations do not require referral to the Commissioner of Police under the Whistleblowers Protection Act 1993. Two of the complainants seek the minister's intervention, and request that an investigation into the council is undertaken, with a view to the appointment of an administrator for the council.

With respect to the complaints received, I advise that the concerns raised and allegations made can be summarised as follows:

that the conflict between certain groups of councillors and the CEO is now at a level that the council is dysfunctional;

that the council is placing inappropriate weight in a range of decisions on the views of a person who is neither an elected member nor a member of staff, namely Mr Rick Powers—

keep in mind that Mr Geoff Knight is here summarising an allegation and not actually making a finding or comment on it—

that various requests for information by certain councillors are being refused by the CEO;

that the council chose not to implement the recommendations from a report addressing allegations made against certain councillors, without good reason;

that minor breaches of the council's Code of Conduct by certain councillors have been subject to an overreaction by other councillors, motivated by revenge;

that the revenge sought relates to failed planning ventures by Mr Powers—

again, a comment on an allegation—

It would appear that complaints have arisen largely from an apparent lack of mutual respect and trust between various parties, which has led to the breakdown of any constructive relationship. My concern is that this is not conducive to good decision-making, and is not in the best interests of the elected body, its administration or the community that the council represents and serves.

I have considered a number of possible conciliatory interventions—

This is the paragraph I read earlier, so I will not repeat it. Two paragraphs down, the letter continues:

Further, I remind each elected member of their obligation to [at] all times act honestly in the performance and discharge of their roles and duties, and of their undertaking to discharge their duties conscientiously and to the best of their abilities. I strongly encourage the submission to represent a unanimous position of the council and one that is approved by all councillors at a meeting. I anticipate that a copy of this letter will be forwarded to each elected member, and the CEO, and dealt with in confidence at a meeting of the council.

I also request that the council and the CEO be reminded of their obligations under the Whistleblowers Protection Act, and particularly the need to ensure that no act of victimisation occurs as a result of these issues. Accordingly, I would welcome your submission, addressed to me, by Friday 29 August 2008.

So, a year ago a number of serious matters warranted investigation, and they included the alleged—and, as I said, this is alleged and not proven at this stage—influence of Mr Rick Powers.

Yesterday, I asked minister Gago about the difference between the letter of 2 July and the letter I have just read out of 1 August 2008, and these are extracts from her response:

The Burnside council has certainly had a history of problems, which preceded my time as minister. However, my understanding is that certain problems were looked at earlier on in the piece and were identified. The council was requested to respond to those. My understanding is that it did, and I will need to check the records for this, but I believe that its response was to invite the government to investigate the issues involved.

From there—and, again, these were arrangements that were put in place largely by my predecessor, and I will have to check the details of this for accuracy—my understanding is that there was an agreement that the council would deal with these problems through a process of conflict resolution and mediation…

I understand that quite an extensive process was undertaken by council and councillors to participate in that process, at the end of which my understanding is that they reported to or wrote to the minister and determined that things had progressed well and that the matters were in hand and being resolved and fixed. My understanding is that, with further developments, that process then broke down to such a degree that council members lost confidence in it and it was disbanded…

Certainly, my understanding is that, as I said, the problems had been protracted and that a great deal has been put in place to assist that council to resolve its own problems. That is how it should be; the state government should not be heavy handed. We should assist local government to manage and deal with its own problems, obviously within certain standards and certain parameters…

Due process is most important. I know there are honourable members here who want a witch-hunt; well, not on my shift. We need to identify problems clearly; they need to be investigated thoroughly; and absolute due process to all parties needs to be adhered to.

Later that day the minister, having sought more advice, came back and added more detail, and I will read two of the three paragraphs of that answer:

I am advised that the mayor's response to my department in late August detailed a revised code of conduct, incorporating an independent investigation process, which had received no complaints since its inception in April 2008; an elected members' grievance policy, under which no such grievances had been lodged; that councillors had been reminded of their duty to make informed decisions in a professional and responsible manner and in the best interests of the community; and a mediation workshop for councillors and the CEO was to be arranged.

I am advised that the records have since been checked. I understand that a mediator was engaged. However, no formal report was provided to me or the chief executive of the department.

I will summarise that long extract. In August 2008, the chief executive wrote to the mayor and said (and I am paraphrasing the letter here), in effect, 'You are on the verge of a formal investigation. Please advise me why I shouldn't advise the minister to investigate you. I am saying this to you because I am concerned about dysfunction, the CEO withholding information, the role of Mr Rick Powers, your lack of action on a key report, and the way in which minor breaches of the code of conduct are being used to extract revenge'. Then the chief executive said, 'I want a unanimous submission from council that explains all these issues or else.' The council wrote back and addressed the issue of dysfunction but ignored the other five points. The chief executive of PIRSA and the minister said, 'Fine; okay' and ignored the situation.

As we heard from minister Gago's response, no-one sought to follow up the mediation process, which was critical to the resolution of these problems. In fact, I have been told by one councillor that, despite requests by a number of councillors to address the role of Mr Powers in this mediation process, the majority of councillors blocked any attempt to do this. So the situation festers and escalates and here we are, a year later, having come almost full circle.

The minister has implied that I want a witch-hunt. However, I simply want a proper investigation of the matters that are being raised by the community and by councillors.

I agree that the minister should go by the book. My point here is why the book was not followed in September 2008 instead of waiting until August 2009. The key point I wish to make today is that the role of an unelected member, which has been the source of friction in this council, was known by the state government but seems to have disappeared from current consideration of the issue.

I will now outline specific concerns about the role of Mr Powers and the sort of allegations people have made and the sorts of concerns they have. Most of what I am about to say is not actually illegal behaviour on Mr Powers' part. There are perhaps one or two things that verge on that, but the great majority is not; none of it has been proved and all should be the subject of investigation. Mr Powers' colourful past, highlighted last night on Today Tonight, should not be held against him. What he was engaged in 20 years ago is irrelevant, unless some connection can be proved with what is going on today. Everyone is entitled to a second chance. I am much more interested in and want to focus on the way in which, at the very least, perceptions about his actions today are creating a problem and that therefore these perceptions and allegations should be the subject of investigation. To go back to where it all began, the Messenger Eastern Courier of 18 January 2006 featured an article headed 'Powers that be move in on Burnside', stating:

An Auldana businessman is backing a stable of candidates in the November elections in an effort to overhaul the entire Burnside council. Rick Powers, a semi-retired former company CEO, said past clashes with Burnside over planning matters had driven his ambition to oust all of the sitting members. Mr Powers would not disclose the amount of money he has put behind candidates—Grace Scinto, Joanne Howard, Ian Chance, Peter Pavan, David Lincoln and Liz Clarke—but the figure is rumoured to be in the thousands.

He said he would also offer support to candidates Lindsay Power and Julian Carbone. He is not backing any of the mayoral candidates—sitting mayor—Wendy Greiner—and challengers Cr Jim Jacobsen and former councillor Ruth Morley—nor would he say publicly of the three, who he would vote for. Mr Powers said the candidates he was backing were all independents who did not know each other before nominating several weeks ago, and were largely funding their own campaigns.

So, Mr Powers played a very active role in this council election and I think all but one of the people he backed were successfully elected. That, of course, is not illegal. I understand there was a subsequent investigation, instigated by the then CEO of Burnside, John Hanlon, now working for the Office of State/Local Government Relations, into some failure to declare donations from Mr Rick Powers, but that is probably not his issue but an issue for the candidate. So, no illegal behaviour there, but the start of a process that generated concerns later.

It did not take long after that for problems to begin to emerge. I have an email provided by the City of Burnside, following a request by a councillor, which is from a Rick Powers to Bruce Williams at Burnside, one of the senior management of Burnside, stating:

Bruce, I am informed that there were also comments made, on March 20, 2007—

four months after the election effectively—

by Crs Hillier, Morley and Collins, in relation to me and 'puppet' councillors. I realise we all have better things to do than waste time with sort of unprofessional behaviour. Unfortunately it seems that if this council is to get over its penchant for dysfunctional behaviour, there is no choice but to deal with it now and in a manner that cannot fail to be understood. I request that you provide me with a transcript of all references to 'corrupt or improper behaviour' by any member of council during the meeting of March 20, 2007. In addition, I need copies of all publicly available documents in relation to candidate election returns, so referred to by Cr Jacobsen, including his own, for election November 2006 and the by-election, if any have yet been filed.

So, four months after the election and it is already becoming quite heated at Burnside and concerns about this individual are to the fore, but there is no illegal behaviour: it could just be the vigorous cut and thrust of politics.

Since then residents and councillors have expressed concern that Mr Powers attends virtually every meeting of council, the Development Assessment Panel and council subcommittees (that was until the meeting started making the headlines). Attending council meetings is highly unusual and somewhat masochistic behaviour, but it is not illegal, either. I have encouraged residents on the Copper Coast to attend council meetings to keep tabs on their council, and I would do that in other areas as well. As part of a pattern of behaviour, it builds perceptions in the community and those perceptions can be laid to rest only with a proper investigation.

Residents and councillors have expressed concern that Mr Powers is alleged to have given directions to councillors from the public gallery. I have been told by two different councillors and two different residents that he has been observed giving directions to councillors he has supported. Mr Powers has denied this—I have spoken to him. This is hard to substantiate and he denies it, but it is one of the perceptions that is floating around and, as I go through the list, members will see how they form a pattern.

Of particular note in this argument about whether or not Mr Powers has influence over council was the fact that on 23 June, when the council met to discuss the resignation and reappointment of CEO Neil Jacobs, the agenda papers were issued with a motion to move into confidence, so the media did not attend. One person did attend and was in the gallery—Mr Rick Powers—and the council voted not to go into confidence. Nothing necessarily improper but, as members would be aware, since that time Burnside has twice called the police to evict the public from the gallery because the council went into confidence. In this pattern of perceptions and allegations, all these things tend to reinforce each other. It is alleged that Mr Powers has unusually close relations with the Chief Executive Officer, Mr Jacobs.

Details of meetings and phone calls between the chief executive officer and Mr Powers have been obtained on request by a councillor. There is a list of meetings: 14 December 2007, introduction to the views of the City of Burnside and development approval processes; 8 February 2008, the topic was a personal development application; 20 February 2008, views on council agenda items and availability on the website; 12 March 2008, views and feedback on CEO performance; and 13 August 2008, feedback on staff members, views on Glenside lot 31 investment policy, skate park and new sporting facilities. A list of phone calls: 23 June 2008, the number of volunteers at the council nursery; 17 September 2008, local government provisions relating to non-attendance at council meetings; and 14 October 2008, a DAP applicant complaint and legislative provisions relating to the appointment of a deputy mayor.

Mr Powers met and conversed with the chief executive officer on a wide range of issues. Now again, not illegal, and in isolation possibly highly commendable, but also extremely unusual. As a former councillor, a resident or even a councillor meeting with that frequency with the chief executive officer, given that they are likely to meet as part of council meetings as well, is unusual but hardly a hanging offence, but, as I say, it feeds these perceptions.

There are concerns that Mr Powers is intimately involved in the assessment of development applications. This is an area where I think there is more concerning evidence. Again, I have sat on a development assessment panel and it was fairly proper, and the need to be very clear about what relationships were with applicants and objectors, staff and so forth were drilled into us.

I will read several extracts from emails relating to development applications with which Mr Powers is involved that were not his developments. On 18 January 2007, three months after the 2006 election, there is a discussion between Mr Powers and Mr Bruce Williams about a development. Mr Powers wrote to Mr Williams concerning a certain development. The response from Mr Williams reads:

Rick

The application is going to the DAP on 23 January. Con Zacharakis has been requesting information on this one so I should have remembered yesterday, however I've known it as '17 Godfrey Terrace'. I sent Con a detailed email highlighting that the application has been processed in accordance with the KPI for the class of development, ie, a category 3 freestanding dwelling. The property has this classification as it is a contributory item in a historic conservation zone. Twelve weeks is permitted for this type of development and the actual time taken by the administration minus mandatory public consultation and requests for information from the applicant is 11 weeks. Could you please remind me of the name of the other applicant? Short term memory lapse on my part.

Mr Powers responded as follows:

Gerard. Yes, Godfrey Tce. Up to DAP. OK well hope that solves the problem. Heritage zone. I hate them, but I could live with Character Zone.

I take it that will be heard at the DAP on 25/01/07.

Short term memory lapse. Yeah I know exactly what you mean…some days more than others.

Parrella of 45 Woodcroft Ave, St Georges, SA 5068—

that is the other applicant—

Fence. One neighbour, to the west wants it left as it is, for privacy reasons, another to the rear and west wanted it shortened, but stated he would remove his objection if the Parrella's built him a new garden (or similar) and actually did it in writing as well.

He subsequently decided to withdraw that, perhaps realising there could be some inference of extortion and there are now no objections. Last I heard Kishan—

one of the development staff—

wanted him to reapply (start the timer again) when we should just approve it and move on.

Thank you Bruce.

By the way, we have discussed the replacement tree. How about a donation, for one in a park? In the interim, we will still move along the lines discussed yesterday, while being sensitive to the greening argument.

We are discussing applications that are not Mr Powers'. He is acting as some sort of freelance advocate for others. Again, it is unusual.

What struck me most, as I said as a former member of a development assessment panel, was the tone. Three months after the election, he is very closely involved in discussing development applications, and that seems to be taken as par for the course in a very familiar and authoritative tone, and I find that extremely interesting. In another email exchange from 24 September 2007 to another member of council staff, he states:

Roberto, here are the names of the two unhappy residents, I mentioned last Tuesday night, whose applications are still with planning.

And he forwards those on. In an extended discussion about a particular development case, he writes to a number of councillors and I assume interested parties judging from the variety of email addresses and CCs to the chief executive officer of Burnside and the mayor. The subject of the email is Ms Khodair and it states:

From one extreme…My comments, for what they're worth…The Khodair saga appears to be moving in the wrong direction. The Administration is making noises about closing her down and Councillor's feelings wanting to 'shoot her in the ass' to adopting her as a holy cause, none of which is likely to resolve the issue to anyone's benefit, except perhaps the lawyers. Tomorrow, Administration seeks the authority to 'shut her down', while Davina [Davina Quirke] will introduce a rescission Motion. If it fails (likely), Khodair will inevitably assemble the media and her lawyers, to paint Burnside as a bully, while probably getting herself arrested to drive her point home. Has anyone actually asked what the glass balustrade is made of? Is it perhaps already 'safety glass'? If so, then approving a retrospective application validates her insurance policy, relieves Burnside of the onerous liability and resolves the problem for all. If not 'safety glass', then a few rolls of 3M Scotchshield would make the offending panels virtually bomb proof. Check out the web [gives a link]. Appreciate Ms Khodair's style is less than moderate. On the other hand, she sees herself as David fighting Goliath and regardless of whether her case is just, it is her 'constitutional right' to 'stick it to the man', if she chooses. She sees this as a fight for her livelihood. She will fight and Council will lose, even if it wins…This problem, in my opinion, has been fumbled by everyone involved, on so many levels. People, it's time to 'suck it up' and settle this damn thing, before the hole gets any deeper.

It should be remembered that he is speaking to councillors and members of the development assessment panel, the mayor and the chief executive officer. The email continues:

The insurance argument is a circular one. While she does have insurance, it is not valid if the structure is not legal. If she has no insurance, she cannot trade. The correct way to deal with this [is] NOT to shut her down, (or escalate the matter with such threats) but simply to make it legal. The only thing really wrong with this situation is that the glass may be dangerous, in the event of an accident. The rest is just paper clips. In all other aspects, the area is attractive, essential to her ongoing success and well received by clientele. The minor issue of 'reflection' could also be simply dealt with by changing the angle of those corner panels...

And on the email goes. Again, what I find striking is the sense of authority and familiarity. There are more emails, with which I will not take up the council's time, but the sense of authority, familiarity and propriety I find quite striking. This person feels he has a really strong role—in fact, a leading role—in this process, and that is highly unusual. If one puts that together with all the other aspects, one can see how it is feeding perceptions of undue influence and how people might make allegations of corruption, even if they are as yet unproven.

The final piece of documentary evidence is an email exchange (which, again, an investigation can assess and verify) between councillor Jim Jacobsen and Mr Rick Powers. It is dated 28 January 2006 and it states:

And on the subjects of pains in the ass your preoccupation with bloody northern windows delayed approval increased costs and nominated (cemented you) as one of the problem councillors in the minds of my prospective donor. There's $2,000 that will absolutely not be going your way in the election campaign...

A couple of paragraphs later the email states (this is Rick Powers talking to Jim Jacobsen):

Mate this is not the first time. I'm starting to think you can't help yourself: that you want to lose. What if that $2,000 is the difference between winning and losing the election. Do you really want four more years of Rob Gilbert and co? I want to replace up to eight councillors; every damn cent counts.

I'm not doing this for health and I'm certainly not doing this for money. I'm doing this to win. To give Burnside more representative governance and yes for revenge also. Loose cannons are dangerous and unreliable. I'm not getting rid of one bunch of ass-holes, only to replace them with another lot. I'm happy for there to be a voice of conscience (you) prodding us to lift our ecological game, but not for those values to get forced down our throats. You're not there to push your own little bandwagon, your philosophies; you're there to help the people of Burnside achieve their goals and dreams, each in accordance with equity. Encouragement and education but not extortion and bully boy tactics. Jim I like you a lot but sometimes I just don't understand you.

We need this investigation to come to a firm conclusion, but my own assessment is that this is not necessarily about this individual lining their pocket. I think that, in a way, as far as I can tell, he does have some sort of sense of public service (if one could describe it as such), which is around the development of Burnside, and his views around the way in which developers should be given a much freer hand and the council should not be held back by what he would see as heritage obsessors, and so forth.

However, I think it is very hard to avoid the conclusion that this person is attempting to control the council and is exerting too much influence on the council. I think I would feel that way if this person was trying to impose a different sort of agenda—maybe the sort of agenda that I would want to impose. The elected members are there to follow the guide of their conscience and to represent their community, and if an individual wants to move in and influence the council in that sense I would have thought that the best way in which to do it is to run as mayor or councillor.

So, I think this issue and the question of Mr Powers has led to allegations of corruption. They are unproven and should not be assumed and he should be given the benefit of the doubt, but I think they undoubtedly raise at this stage already important questions about the level of influence that should be held by an unelected person over councillors. At the very least, I think that raises, if not issues of criminality, issues of public policy and good governance.

As I said, one of my objectives was to make sure that these issues were investigated. They are already in the public domain and they are persistent and consistent allegations made by many members of the community of Burnside and by many councillors. They will not go away. They should be investigated—and, in fact, an investigation is probably the only way to clear the name of either Burnside or Mr Powers. That investigation may in fact also turn the spotlight on other people in a less than flattering way; that remains to be seen.

However, I find it difficult to understand why the minister seems to be attempting to narrow the scope of the investigation only to internal council fights; why she is just looking at council behaving badly and why she appears reluctant to examine the role of external influences or, at the very least, if we want to understate this, only looking at the perceptions about the role of an external influence in the problems encountered by Burnside council.

I think this comes at quite a good time. I believe the minister said earlier that there would be a bill to amend the Local Government Act, and I think the kinds of issues that are raised in such an investigation would be very useful in informing our debate about that act. However, it is absolutely critical for the good governance of Burnside and for the confidence of the community of Burnside that the minister investigates Burnside council and, if that investigation does not look at this matter of the undue influence of this individual, it will be seen as having very little credibility and the problems at Burnside will continue in one form or another.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. Carmel Zollo.

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