HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-10-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ELECTIONS) (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the House of Assembly's amendment.

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

That the House of Assembly's amendment be agreed to.

Members will recall that an amendment to this bill was moved by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire. His amendment introduced the concept of a prescribed contract, and that was defined as a contract for the provision of goods, services or any other matter that has been included in the business plan and budget. Anything that was a prescribed contract was to be excluded from the caretaker period. That encompassed almost everything as it was very broad brushed. Concerns were raised and we also received advice that that definition of prescribed contract was so wide and so vague that it was likely to create contractual uncertainty for council operations and would also effectively negate the essential purpose of the caretaker period because it excluded almost everything.

The clause was amended in the other place following consultations with the Local Government Association, and those discussions resulted in a prescribed contract that would relate to road and drainage works. That means that road and drainage works would be excluded from the caretaker provisions and could occur right throughout the year. That was because those works are able to be done only at limited times, according to weather opportunities: it cannot be raining or be too hot, and so on. There are limited weather condition opportunities throughout the year during which these works could be completed. Therefore, given that that could place quite significant restrictions on a particular project, it was agreed that we would include those matters as prescribed contracts and, therefore, they would be exempt from the caretaker provisions.

Some members probably received a letter from the Executive Director of the LGA, Wendy Campagna. She wanted to extend the definition of the prescribed contract even further, that is, to exclude even more things from the caretaker period. However, the things that she proposed were very case specific; therefore, the government was not able to support those additions.

The LGA was prepared to accept the amendment as it stands before members today. Obviously, the LGA would prefer it to be broader than it is, but it has accepted the amendment as it stands. We have also given an undertaking that through regulations we will include a number of routine day-to-day operational matters and any other particular contract provisions that might need to be excluded from the caretaker provision, and we have agreed to work with the LGA in developing those regulations. I urge members to support the amendment.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I speak on behalf of my colleague who, as members know, is paired at the moment. Family First moved this amendment in good faith. We believe that it is a good amendment. We thank the opposition and other Independent members for their support when we initially moved the amendment. However, I inform the chamber that we will not be insisting on the amendment.

We are somewhat satisfied with the arrangements that the government has reached in a compromise agreement with the LGA; but I must point out that we believe that our initial amendment was superior. The reason for that is that it would have included things like sewerage works, which will not be included under the new compromise arrangement. Also, one must ask why lighting projects, for example, could not continue. If a light goes out or, for some reason, it does not work, it is the sort of thing that people want fixed fairly quickly. You do not want a delay for something like that; it can be a safety hazard in some instances. Our amendment was deliberately broad for those reasons.

We are somewhat disappointed that we were not able to get it through. The other limitation that I see in the compromise arrangement is the question of the federal government's stimulus package, which is obviously very substantial and which will be significantly implemented by local government. We believe that the compromise agreement with the LGA may, in fact, create some difficulties down the track, when local government elections are held when they are due in 2010.

That being said, we are pleased that a compromise has been reached and that an arrangement has come partially towards what we sought to achieve in the first place. As a party we do our best to not clog up the wheels of government. For that reason, we will not be insisting on our amendment, although, as I say, we do feel that it offered a better solution.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In the government's initial opposition to the amendment that was successful and the committee is now considering whether or not to insist on, the government said three things: that it thought the amendment would allow controversial decisions to be made in the caretaker period, that it was too vague, and that the government would prefer to consult with the LGA and come back with an agreed regulation. Can the minister advise the committee of the outcome of the consultation with the LGA about an alternative regulation?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: We met with the LGA and had discussions about this amendment, and we advised it of the opinion that we received about some legal ambiguities due to the scope of the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's original amendment. So, we discussed that with the LGA. We then sat down and tried to work out an alternative amendment that it was satisfied with, and the outcome of that is before you. So, although it would rather it be broader, nevertheless, it was prepared to support this as it is before members today.

We have also entered into discussion with the LGA about the regulations that will come later, and within those regulations we will consider those other matters that would need to be exempted from the caretaker provision. There are a number; the Hon. Dennis Hood mentioned for instance stimulus package initiatives that are very time specific and other contracts for instance that have been signed already, and there are time constraints in them. There are a number of things on which we have said we will work with the LGA to ensure those matters are picked up in regulation, and it is reasonably satisfied with that.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the minister for that advice. The opposition will also be supporting the council in not insisting on the amendments, but in saying that I highlight what I believe are some inconsistencies with the minister's opposition to the Family First amendments and the government's alternative definition of prescribed contract. As I said, one of the minister's main objections, if not the main objection, to the Brokenshire amendment was that it would allow controversial decisions to be made during the caretaker period.

The government's alternative definition of prescribed contract relates to road construction or maintenance or drainage works. There is no doubt that those matters can lead to great controversy. What might to us seem to be a small proposed change for a road can be extremely controversial in a local community. Local governments are major businesses in this state, for want of a better word, and their road construction projects can be very large. Drainage works by local government in the driest state in the driest continent in the context of a state government not interested in stormwater can be extremely controversial, so I reject the government's suggestion that the alternative words avoid the controversy of the original motion.

It is also clear that these projects could be extremely expensive. There is no limitation on the value of these contracts during the period. One of the great attributes of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendment was that it was linked to the annual business plan in the budget, and that is under the Local Government Act subject to consultation. These road construction and maintenance and drainage works could be the good idea of a councillor on the night. I concur in the Hon. Mr Hood's comments that there is much to commend to the council in the original amendment. Through implementation of these proposals in practice I would not be surprised if by regulation or statute we were looking at a very similar clause to that of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire in a few years' time, but with a stubborn government you do what you can.

Motion carried.

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