HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2021-02-16 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Statutes Amendment (Local Government Review) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 October 2020.)

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (16:24): I rise to speak to the Statutes Amendment (Local Government Review) Bill 2020 and indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition. This rather voluminous bill comes to us in a remarkably different form from its original incarnation. We can cast our minds back to the 2018 election and the Liberals' oft repeated campaign promise to deliver rate capping. Indeed, it was something the Liberals promised many years prior to that election campaign. We all know that the original bill failed to gain the support of this parliament.

The bill before us now was the second attempt, the reboot if you like. It was billed as a new way to achieve the Liberal's rate capping promise and supposedly force downward pressure on council rates. Of course, the rate capping approach in this second incarnation was massively watered down, but a kind of rate monitoring system still existed.

Then late last year we witnessed a sudden and wholesale abandonment of this long held Liberal policy position, with the entire scheme for rate capping entirely dumped. Talking of dumping, there were then more than 100 amendments—

An honourable member: How many?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: —more than 100 amendments—dumped in the house on the day that it was set to be progressed. Those amendments represented a backflip of pretty epic proportions really. The watered down rate monitoring plan was replaced by an even flimsier reporting system administered by ESCOSA that is unlikely to exert any downward pressure on rates whatsoever. The government does not even make an assertion that it will have any impact when it comes to reducing the cost of living.

Any rate reductions we do see this year or next are the result of decisions made by individual councils, particularly in response to COVID, rather than anything to do with this bill or indeed anything to do with the actions of this government. Put simply, the Liberal's capitulation is yet another broken promise. It can be added to GlobeLink, dumping the right-hand tram turn, privatising our train and tram operations, and countless other ideas that might have looked good on a Liberal candidate's flyer but were not worth the glossy paper they were written on.

It is a rather long list of broken promises, and I would hate to unnecessarily delay the bill by chronicling every single one of those broken promises. Nevertheless, Mr Speaker, there remain other elements of this bill that Labor does support and indeed welcomes.

The PRESIDENT: I have been downgraded. The honourable member should not downgrade the President.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: It is alright, go on.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My humblest apologies, Mr President. It is outrageous that you were inadvertently called 'Mr Speaker'. There are, however, other elements of this bill that Labor supports and indeed welcomes, measures that implement mechanisms to address poor behaviour in particular.

We do commend the government on those measures that seek to update and streamline laws governing community engagement, transparency, member behaviour, meeting processes and election processes. However, there is room for further improvement. The Labor team has interrogated this bill extensively and consulted quite widely. The Labor shadow ministers, firstly the member for Light and then since October the member for Badcoe, have devoted considerable time and resources to ensuring that we as an opposition do our duty to investigate and assess this government bill, to speak with those affected parties and offer constructive amendments where we think it is necessary.

I will give a brief overview of the amendments that Labor is proposing and provide an explanation of their effect. We hope to have the support of not only the crossbench but indeed the government for these well-considered amendments. After consultation with the Local Government Association, various mayors and various councillors, Labor will propose an amendment addressing the government's plan to cap the number of councillors.

Those opposite wish to cap the number of elected members at 12, but we on this side understand from those at the coalface that this is unworkable or at least very problematic as a maximum limit. It would lead to some wards having an uneven representation, considering that one of the 12 will from now on be a directly elected mayor with no ward. Labor will be moving an amendment to see this cap lifted to 13.

Labor recognises that reducing costs and being efficient with ratepayers' money is very important. For each elected member of a council, there are of course costs associated. Labor supports the government's intent in terms of ensuring a cost-effective approach to the number of members on each council. However, Labor also understands that for some communities there may be an argument for additional members. This may be because of the number of electors, the geography or other reasons. This is why Labor is also moving amendments to establish a process by which a council that feels it is justified in having additional members above the cap can seek to achieve this.

That process would involve an independent representation review being conducted. The report of that representation review would then go to the Electoral Commission of South Australia. ECSA would issue an exemption certificate, exempting a council from the cap if the report finds it is justified. ECSA could only reject the recommendations of the representative review in extraordinary circumstances, which might include, for example, the appropriate processes not being adhered to.

This amendment addresses the very practical operational needs of councils and caters for local circumstances to a greater extent than is currently proposed. This amendment has the support of the LGA and the vast majority of councils. It is a sensible resolution to the discontent about a cap and ensures that only councils that can justify having additional councillors above the cap are able to do so.

Of course, Labor could have simply rejected the government's position, but we have sought to be constructive and offer the parliament a halfway point, a negotiated middle ground that better reflects competing needs in relation to the number of councillors. Labor is also putting forward a suite of amendments to inject further openness, accountability and transparency by way of publicly disclosing the benefits for staff and elected members. These amendments, if supported, would see greater disclosure and public accountability for staff and councillor travel, credit card use and gifts.

Members of the public who are so inclined could access this information online and inform themselves of their council's activities. Labor believes these additional safeguards are reasonable and measured and will be seeking support for these amendments. Labor will seek to put an end to CEO salary packages, including memberships to things like golf clubs or other frivolous personal expenses. Such expenses should not be footed by the ratepayer. Clearly, ratepayers do not want such arrangements; they are neither a good use of limited funds nor are they ethical.

Labor's amendments seek to limit what a CEO salary package can include, that is, limited to salary and superannuation, a vehicle, vehicle allowances and associated running costs, information and communications technology and, in the case of regional councils, council-owned accommodation. Further, Labor will seek to have CEO contracts publicly available to ensure ratepayers can test that only those elements are fulfilled in a contract and not exceeded. Again, we believe this is a modest measure that simply builds on other accountability measures in the bill.

On the other hand, we are conscious of privacy issues and the need for some limitations when it comes to disclosure of information about individual salaries. The Liberal bill seeks to make the remuneration of all staff publicly available—all staff. Labor has been approached by parties, largely non-executive council staff, concerned that, even though these remuneration arrangements will only be identified by position title, this nevertheless presents some privacy concerns for non-executive workers. We are sympathetic to this view.

While openness and accountability are important, it is chiefly the transparency of remuneration packages of those at the top of the tree, if you like, that most easily meet the public interest test. We have listened to workers and their industrial representatives at the ASU and the AWU and have put forward an amendment that would see the remuneration packages of the top five most highly recompensed staff listed publicly, rather than all staff. This measure will also ease the administrative burden on councils.

Labor will also seek to ensure that resolutions passed in camera are recorded and available publicly, along with a list of which councillors supported or opposed the resolution. Otherwise, how can ratepayers have confidence that their councillors are declaring conflicts of interest and acting in their best interests if they do not even know which way they have voted on motions? This is a measure that will provide greater public confidence about what their council is deciding, without compromising sensitive information.

The legal bills of councils is another area that is often a source of public interest and indeed media coverage. Labor seeks to make the legal costs of councils available to interested ratepayers by mandating that total legal costs are disclosed in each council's annual report. We believe that it is not an unreasonable administrative burden and once again would lift the level of transparency and provide public confidence. It would ensure accountability and assist in putting an additional brake on unjustified or excessive spending.

In several sections of this bill the government seeks to remove requirements for public notices to be published in local newspapers and instead only requires notification on websites and/or in the Gazette. Labor is concerned about the digital divide and the fact that many people are not online or are not adept at accessing information online. These people—often including the elderly, low income earners or people from non-English-speaking backgrounds—should not be further excluded from civic engagement.

Additionally, in regional areas it is particularly common for people to use their local newspaper as a source of information, even if they are also accessing information online. Indeed, as communities we should be supporting those news outlets, especially suburban and regional newspapers, that have a critical role in informing our communities. Many local suburban and regional newspapers do rely on government advertising, and they deserve the support of their council and wider community to ensure their continued operation.

If these outlets disappear—and they are in grave danger of disappearing—we will all suffer the consequences in terms of coverage of local issues and locally based information sharing. Labor addresses this concern, chiefly with amendments in relation to the Community Engagement Charter.

It is the position of Labor that moveable signs—better known as corflutes—are an important and affordable communication tool for candidates in local government elections. Unlike state or federal MPs, who might be afforded more airtime or newspaper coverage, there are relatively few other means for local government candidates to alert the community of their candidacy. Labor will be opposing the government's changes in relation to corflutes. We are, however, very much open to exploring more environmentally sensitive solutions, if that is the desire of those in this chamber.

Labor has significant concerns about the removal of provisions requiring councils to subject some community land status revocation applications to ministerial scrutiny. Labor contends that the case for this reduced level of scrutiny has not been made by the government. In the other place, and between the houses, the minister has responded to Labor's questions about the volume of applications by conceding that there are, in fact, relatively few revocation applications.

In 2019, according to the information provided to the opposition, there were only 14 applications, just five of those would no longer need to go to the minister under the government's proposed changes. That hardly seems like an overwhelming burden for the Attorney, her well-staffed office and the department, but it provides an important protection for the community.

In addition, in the house the Attorney also confirmed that decisions on revocations are made via delegated authority rather than being personally decided and signed off by the Attorney herself. This raises the question of what the government is hoping to achieve with these changes. These measures will not alleviate any burden from the minister but will simply remove the level of scrutiny for some revocation applications.

The requirement to go to the minister to revoke community land status creates a safety net that protects ratepayers from flawed decisions or lack of transparency in decision-making. We need to ensure that councils are undertaking community consultation in relation to these matters and that the resulting decisions are based on facts and in the best interests of the community. There are sometimes conflicting objectives when considering such matters, and the current approach, which involves ministerial scrutiny, provides an important safety net.

Those of us on this side of the chamber know the value for a worker of having someone on their side. We know the value of the worker's voice and the importance of involving unions as workers' representatives in the decision-making process. That is why we are putting forward amendments to restore registered industrial associations to this act and ensure that unions are consulted when employee behavioural standards are drafted by councils. It is only fair that workers have a say, and it affords greater rigour to the development of such standards. It also makes sense that if workers are part of the drafting of standards they are much more likely to buy into them and to adhere to them.

Further, our amendments ensure there is no confusion that the long established rights of workers enshrined in acts, awards, industrial agreements and contracts are not diminished by any employee behaviour standard. It may be argued by some that that just will not happen but, for the clarity of all concerned, we believe this measure is helpful, or at the very least not problematic.

We have also listened to the recognised industrial associations about their concerns that some language changes made by the government may open the way to greater privatisation and outsourcing of local government services. While this may, of course, be the subject of some debate, if this government is not intending to allow greater outsourcing and privatisation then there is certainly no harm in reverting to the language previously used in the act to describe the services provided by councils, and at the end of the day why would we ever doubt the government's or the Premier's promise that they do not have a privatisation agenda? Who could possibly doubt that statement?

I turn now to Labor's position on amendments put forward by other members of this place and indicate that we will be supporting the government's amendment in relation to sight-impaired voters. We are also minded to support the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendment, which aims to save paper and no longer require annual reports to be tabled to the parliament and other places. However, we would like to see some notification to the chambers of parliament that the annual reports are available. This is as much for the information of members with an interest in their local councils as it is for accountability, to ensure that annual reports are being produced as required under the act.

Labor appreciates that the Hon. Mr Parnell has given consideration to this suggestion and we hope to be in a position to support his amendment, which certainly has a sound environmental and administrative objective. Labor will reserve its position on other amendments, and we look forward to continuing our conversations with the crossbench to make this bill as rigorous as possible.

In conclusion, we have worked hard on this side to contribute constructively to this bill and ensure it serves the ratepayers and taxpayers of South Australia. We would like to place on record our thanks to the LGA; a number of council CEOs, mayors and elected members across the state who have been in contact with us; the ASU; the AWU; and members of the public who have expressed their views to Labor on this bill.

This is a very lengthy and technical piece of legislation, with several hundred amendments filed across the chambers. The assistance and cooperation of these groups and these individuals, particularly the LGA, has been vital in understanding the impact of the bill and formulating constructive amendments. We would also like to thank the office of the Attorney-General, and in particular the Attorney's adviser, Annabel Wilkins, for her assistance in navigating what has been a very lengthy and complex bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

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