HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2022-09-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Plebiscite (South East Council Amalgamation) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 8 September 2022.)

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (11:32): I rise to indicate that I am the lead opposition speaker on the Plebiscite (South East Council Amalgamation) Bill 2022. This bill was introduced on the very same day that nominations closed for the local government council elections. Voting papers for those elections will be going out in just over two weeks' time, which means that the government is scrambling to get this legislation through both houses in order to get the plebiscite vote out with the usual local council voting papers. It is an extremely short time frame and it is the definition of policy on the run. The good people of the South-East know it, and they are far from impressed.

We really did have an outrageous situation during the last full sitting week, where convention went out of the window in the other place and the opposition and the Independents were having to deal with this bill, as I understand it, at the Premier's behest, sitting somewhat late into the evening whilst the Premier, in all of his arrogance, knew they had the numbers and in a display of contempt for this place and for the people of the South-East, took off to Canberra for an evening to socialise.

This is utterly disrespectful. If the roles were reversed, the mob opposite would have screamed blue murder. Why? Because it smacks of hypocrisy. For the Premier to use his position in a top-down approach and force this upon the good people of Mount Gambier and the District Council of Grant and then not even bother to turn up for the debate is poor judgement. The people of these communities deserve better. That is why I visited the South-East last week, along with my colleague the member for Flinders and shadow minister for local government, to speak with local residents about this bill.

We did this because those of us on this side of the of the chamber appreciate the importance of consultation, communication and community engagement. We also communicated with many others in writing. The feedback we have received has been emphatic. The community feel once again like they are being set up as guinea pigs for the advantage of the rest of the state, just like Labor did with those communities previously with the forward sale of their forest assets a number of years ago.

Let's be clear, there is already a process for looking at local government boundaries. The South Australian Local Government Boundaries Commission is the independent body that assesses and investigates council boundary change proposals and makes recommendations to the minister. There are a number of ways this investigation can be triggered: first, by resolution of either house of parliament or by the minister himself or by a council or councils and, lastly, by the prescribed percentage of a number of eligible electors, that being the members of the community who will be impacted by that decision.

This begs the question: why have the councils or communities of either the City of Mount Gambier or the District Council of Grant not put forward a proposal to the independent Local Government Boundaries Commission already? I can only assume that this is probably because these communities are not ready or prepared for this to happen. If the local government minister believes that this process is flawed, then why not propose to amend the legislation? If the minister believes this process is not properly resourced, then why not advocate for the Treasurer to allocate more funding?

Why should the communities of the South-East be used as a test case once again? Where is the justification for this process? These are specific questions the communities have asked us when we met with them to discuss this bill. If there is a sound justification for this bill, it is yet to be properly communicated.

The Premier speaks about a peculiar situation, which is what he described as a donuted council when it comes to the arrangements with Grant and Mount Gambier, and the local government minister has used similar language. This scenario is not unique to these councils. This circumstance happens in a number of different areas in our state. It also happens in other jurisdictions in Australia. Furthermore, some of these communities have already put forward proposals for the boundary commission to consider.

So the question must be: why not enable and support communities who are already looking at their council boundaries, instead of picking on those in the South-East who have not even asked for this to occur? Why is this the Plebiscite (South East Council Amalgamation) Bill? Why not enable a plebiscite for other councils, ones that have already put forward proposals and whose communities have already started the conversation? What is the Premier's obsession with the South-East? Your guess is as good as mine, Mr President.

Last week, when the member for Flinders and I travelled to the South-East, we listened to what the community members and ratepayers of the City of Mount Gambier and the District Council of Grant had to say regarding the plebiscite. I would like to take this opportunity to again thank the people of the South-East for taking the time to talk to us. They are busy people—they are working, farming, raising families and running businesses, contributing to their region and our state's economy. To be frank, these people probably have much better things to do than take time out of their day to travel to Port MacDonnell or to the East Gambier Football Club to speak to us about their concerns about this process and this plebiscite, but they came because this issue is incredibly important to them and to their community.

Do you know what they told us? They told us they are frustrated and angry with this process and want transparency. They want transparency about what this question will mean for them and their community going forward. This is a thought bubble plebiscite, with scant detail that creates more uncertainty for the good people of the District Council of Grant and the City of Mount Gambier. What is more, if it is unsuccessful it means that any future proposal, to quote the Premier, would be 'dead for a generation'. Why and how?

We have a Premier who is foisting a process onto the South-East community with little regard as to what impact it may have on that community. These communities want clarity around what a successful plebiscite looks like. How is it that when this legislation was in the lower house the Minister for Local Government said:

There is no single vote, no single number, that will automatically result in any action. The government will…consider…how voters across both councils voted, how voters in each council voted and, in the case of the District Council of Grant, how voters in each of the three wards voted. It will consider the voter turnout across both councils in each ward and, in the case of District Council of Grant, in each of its three wards.

And:

I have been advised that there is no threshold. We will analyse the results when they come in and what we will do is have a look at it. I can given you my word that that is what we will be doing.

But then, when questioned after the opposition's community forums, the minister, in the media, declared that a simple majority of over 50 per cent of all votes on the plebiscite across both councils will be considered a positive response.

Well, which one is it? They have gone from saying, 'We will look at both councils separately' to 'We will now lob them in together and lock them in as a whole.' Of course, if the latter of the minister's comments are true, this means that the District Council of Grant, as a smaller council and population, can effectively be ignored in this process. To me, this does not just sniff, it reeks of a forced process.

It beggars belief that the Premier and his government would not understand or appreciate the fairness and merit of proportional representation. The City of Mount Gambier certainly understands it, so does the District Council of Grant, so does the Local Government Association, who have publicly stated that they do not and would not support forced amalgamations, and so does the opposition. The government has shown this chamber and the people of the South-East that they cannot be trusted to be consistent and transparent with the definition of a 'successful plebiscite', amongst other things.

The community members we spoke to in both Mount Gambier and Port MacDonnell were firm in their desire to ensure that, if the plebiscite is to go ahead at all—and we were hard-pressed to find anyone within the community in favour of this plebiscite—then the definition of a successful plebiscite must be one in which there is proportional representation of both the District Council of Grant and the City of Mount Gambier, and that is a fair request.

They have also asked that, if this plebiscite is to go ahead, a clause be inserted into this bill around reporting of the plebiscite vote to ensure transparency. They would like to see the reporting of the percentage of voter turnout in both councils as well as the breakdown of yes and no votes for the City of Mount Gambier, as well as the breakdown of yes and no votes for the District Council of Grant and its wards.

That is why we the opposition are putting forward two sensible amendments to this bill. I would encourage the government and the crossbench to support these amendments, which have come not from us but from the community members of the City of Mount Gambier and the District Council of Grant. I note the Hon. Mr Simms has also put in an amendment. I will not speak at length about this amendment during this speech except to simply say that this is an amendment that the opposition would certainly be supportive of. In fact, it was an amendment that we had considered but thought that to proceed with it we would have to considerably amend the Local Government Act.

I thank the honourable member for ensuring the opposition were aware of this amendment as soon as practicable and I commend the Hon. Mr Simms for his thoughtfulness around this amendment as it does achieve one of the desired outcomes, which is to give the South-East community the autonomy to decide their future and ensure that any council amalgamation is not a forced one. I also note that the government indicated they had their own amendment to their own bill, less than two hours before sitting. It seems they have recognised the lack of transparency and have decided to be somewhat transparent in terms of reporting of the vote and we welcome this.

Last week was incredibly important for us on this side of the chamber. It was a chance for us to listen to the Mount Gambier and Grant communities because that is who this legislation is going to affect, and they thanked us for doing so. They said, 'Thank you for coming down to our community, engaging with us on a serious issue and doing what the Premier and his government should have done before they lobbed this grenade on us without any warning, without any consultation, without any information as to why now and why like this.'

On behalf of these people I would like to say to the government that this process should have started from the ground up, from the community itself, not from a select group of individuals working with the Premier in a top-down approach. This process should not have been forced upon individuals in the South-East to fit in with the state government's agenda and should not have been lumped with local government elections for convenience. This process should have started with the government holding community forums on this issue, like the ones we the opposition held to gauge community sentiment for the proposal and, if that was positive, to then consider a plebiscite with a clear question and a clear outcome for the community of the South-East.

For the government to be trying to rush this bill and this plebiscite through in a short time frame should be a point of shame to the Premier, the local government minister and the government. They should be showing more respect to the communities and the councils of the South-East.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (11:44): I rise to speak on behalf of the Greens on the Plebiscite (South East Council Amalgamation) Bill 2022. I want to put on the public record on behalf of the Greens our concerns with respect to amalgamations. Council amalgamations do not have a good track record, and we have seen in other jurisdictions that forced amalgamations can, indeed, deliver very negative outcomes for the community.

This plebiscite does give residents of the District Council of Grant and the City of Mount Gambier some level of a say in their future direction but we do worry that there are no appropriate safeguards in place to ensure that the views of the community are heard and respected. Over the last 30 years we have seen forced amalgamations in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. In both of these places, merger plans have led to service cuts and reduced community representation.

In 2007, Queensland saw widespread protest, following the announcement of forced council amalgamations. Cootamundra-Gundagai Regional Council has recently announced their decision to demerge due to five years of financial and staffing issues. For regional areas, mergers are particularly challenging, as big, amalgamated councils can struggle to represent wider geographical areas with diverse interests.

There is also a concern about the potential for job cuts in the local government sector, particularly during this period of economic uncertainty, and I would love to know the views of the key unions that represent council workers in these jurisdictions on these council merger plans. We are pleased that this bill does not force amalgamation on residents, but does ask a clear question: 'Do you support the examination of an amalgamation of the District Council of Grant and the City of Mount Gambier to form a single council?' Consultation is integral in any democracy.

Our concern, however, is that should local residents indicate their interest in exploring an amalgamation, there is no appropriate safeguard in place to ensure that the views of the more populous area are not dominating the outcome of the poll. There are also no safeguards in terms of what happens next. If the people of Grant and Mount Gambier vote in a plebiscite that they are, indeed, in favour of exploring an amalgamation, it is not clear what the government does next in terms of further community consultation. I will later be moving an amendment to require the government to go back to the people in those council jurisdictions as a precursor for any amalgamation, and I consider that to be a very important safeguard.

My office has received correspondence from constituents in the relevant council areas detailing their concerns. Some are fearful there will be a forced amalgamation by stealth, and some are concerned about whether the residents of Grant will be given equal consideration to their peers in Mount Gambier. Some ratepayers are also concerned about the speed and the lack of information in the lead-up to this plebiscite. I would say that the government's timing has been less than optimal. Springing this bill on the parliament a minute to midnight before council elections is not a sensible way to approach a reform such as this.

These concerns should not fall on deaf ears, and if this plebiscite is a precedent for future amalgamation plebiscites, then we should heed the concerns of residents and ratepayers and ensure that all of their voices are heard. We believe that the process that follows this plebiscite must involve further community consultation, and when the Productivity Commission and the boundary commission consider the implications of an amalgamation, we are moving today that there be a secondary plebiscite held in those council areas as a precursor of any amalgamation plan.

I mentioned before some of the concerns arising from amalgamations, and I may put on the public record some of the data coming out of New South Wales. I did mention the Cootamundra-Gundagai Regional Council amalgamation. Those councils were forced to merge back in 2016 and a de-amalgamation process was announced this year after reports published by the Local Government Boundaries Commission.

The 70-page report described escalating tensions between the two communities following the forced merger of the shires in 2016. The council has been plagued by conflict and financial troubles throughout its short history. Mayor Charlie Sheahan is quoted after the release of the reports saying:

We can do the finances to death, but [we need to] start talking about the social aspect and the impact that's having on the people and that has come through in these submissions. That has played a big part in the decisions [that have been made].

Public submissions were overwhelmingly—overwhelmingly—in favour of demerging the councils. Since those councils have merged there has also been financial and staffing problems, and these were detailed in the LGBC public hearings in July. Over the five years to June 2021, the total spending exceeded the council's original adopted budget by $15.8 million. That is interesting when one considers the case for mergers, particularly in a regional context. We are often told that it is going to result in savings to ratepayers. The evidence in other jurisdictions is that that is not the case.

In 2020, a freeze on merging the two rate systems of the formerly separate councils came to an end, and the councils had until June 2021 to complete the harmonisation process. One pensioner in the local area has said that her rates increased by more than $200 as a result of the council merger. She stated the increase could not be justified because her area did not have the same services as major centres that were also included in the new merged council.

We need to think very carefully about what happens to councils when mergers take place: what happens in terms of rates, what happens in terms of service delivery and what happens in terms of community representation and the community voice. I am sure that these are all issues that the communities of Grant and Mount Gambier will turn their minds to, should this bill pass the parliament. I intend to make some additional comments in relation to my amendments during the next stage of the bill.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (11:52): I rise on behalf of SA-Best to say that we will be supporting the bill and the government amendments, and one of the amendments from the opposition, but not those from the Greens. I will echo the sentiments of my colleagues on the crossbench, and the opposition, about the timing of this piece of legislation. Again, it is rushed, and it comes at a time when the council nominations have been done and dusted, and of course we are into the caretaker mode and the ratepayers of both Mount Gambier and Grant are now being expected to not only consider the election of their council members and also their respective mayors, but also this prospect of kickstarting a process that could lead to amalgamation.

Of course, our concerns are in the District Council of Grant, particularly, because they are a small council area. In fact, they only cover 1,897 square kilometres and there is a population of 8,511, compared to the City of Mount Gambier, which covers 38.88 square kilometres and has a population of 27,642. There are 12,785 households in Mount Gambier compared with 3,869 in the District Council of Grant. The minimum weekly income for the District Council of Grant is $1,383 while in Mount Gambier it is $1,053. The size of the Mount Gambier council is quite significant—153—whereas in the District Council of Grant the staffing level there is 87.

As I mentioned, the electoral enrolment date closed after 29 July this year. Of course, the bill was introduced afterwards. There are issues with participation by people in those respective council areas. As we know, in local government there is voluntary voting, which is something I am opposed to. I think it should be mandatory voting. However, there are people who are probably thinking that it is too late for them to have their say and that have not enrolled, but that is a debate for further down the track.

The plebiscite requirement to commence examination is 50 plus one, and the data will assess where the two categories of votes are across the two councils. The government formula falls short of its intended purpose. I would have liked, if we had time to discuss this bill, there to be a definition of what constitutes broad community support for this process to begin.

The lack of community consultation has resulted in confusion among the community where there is not a proper understanding about what the intent of this bill is. I think there are people out there who think that this is going to lead to a council amalgamation, when in actual fact it will not. All it does is begin the discussion in both those areas, and it will also trigger an examination of the amalgamation, with an independent assessment to be carried out to assess the feasibility.

As we know, with issues like this, community consultation is at the very heart of the debate. This is a vote which triggers an examination of the feasibility of amalgamation, while not triggering the process of amalgamation itself, yet I feel the way it has been done it has been poorly explained to the members of both communities. They are in a situation where between now and the close of polling they have to take this into consideration, and I do not think we have seen a yes vote or a no vote campaign that has been mounted. It is probably being rushed through now. The community certainly would have appreciated more time.

The passage of this bill needs to represent the same priorities as those of the two councils, which are to support fair and equal representation on the matter to ensure the voices of the community are heard and their best interests remain at the forefront of our purpose and decision-making. Of course, if and when it gets to a point where they need to discuss amalgamation, I am sure that those priorities of having representation will be given.

As I mentioned, my concerns have been the issue of the timing of this bill; however, I note that SA-Best is a strong supporter of amalgamation of councils. I am of the view that we have far too many in this state, but I am not supportive of forced amalgamations. Speaking with the LGA this morning, I understand that there are already eight councils that are in the process now of having a look at the possibility of amalgamations down the track. As I think the LGA pointed out to me this morning, there should be a proper process followed for amalgamations. It needs to be efficient, and members need to be involved in the debate.

I note also that one of the concerns that has been raised by the people in Grant is the debt levels that have been carried by the City of Mount Gambier, particularly on a project to build a community and recreation hub. I think the estimated cost is between $30 million and $60 million. The District Council of Grant is worried that any future amalgamation would require them to take on this debt leverage. As I have pointed out, there is a large disparity in the size of the two councils in question.

However, there would be some consternation amongst ratepayers, should an amalgamation take place somewhere down the track, at the levels of rates that could be imposed. Mount Gambier of course covers largely commercial and residential zones, whereas Grant is largely rural, and we know how rural can restrict revenues. However, there is still a long way to go before we even get to that point. Who knows, but perhaps it may be beneficial in the long run for a smaller council to amalgamate with a larger council that has larger rate revenues and would be able, in its budget, to look after the needs of both communities.

As has been pointed out by the Hon. Robert Simms, we know that there have been failures with amalgamations that were, usually, forced and that the successes of amalgamation via consented agreement by adjoining councils where there is a mutual benefit are few and far between. As I have pointed out, there are some councils that are currently looking at it, but it is an expensive process. Councils need to find significant amounts of money to have a look at the process involved in it.

Again, as I said earlier, the issue I had was with the timing of this bill. However, it is imperative that the ballots do get out and that this process begins. Eventually it would have begun, in some way or another, it is just that it has been handled in a rather slapdash way, very quickly, but I am sure that, in the end, it would have eventuated anyway. With that, I will conclude my remarks by saying that SA-Best will support the bill.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (12:02): I rise to air concerns regarding the process surrounding this plebiscite. My office has been inundated with emails from concerned members of the public, both from the District Council of Grant and from the City of Mount Gambier. We have also received direct correspondence from both councils concerned, as well as the Local Government Association, all three of whom feel there was a lack of consultation and communication.

Whilst One Nation agrees with the minimisation of government bureaucracy, I have not seen evidence to suggest that this amalgamation will improve local government efficiencies. Amalgamations work when they are community-driven and when the councils involved are on board and have been fully consulted. Interstate examples show us that forced and poorly consulted amalgamations without community support can have a very negative and costly impact. There are examples of expensive de-amalgamations and the interruption of important services.

The regional District Council of Grant, which has a significantly smaller population size than the City of Mount Gambier, have stated that they and their community want to be fully consulted and informed through all steps of the process. They do not want the decision-making taken away from their constituents and given to bureaucrats in Adelaide. I urge the government to communicate fully with both councils and the Local Government Association at every stage of this process.

Premier Malinauskas spoke of a productivity commission to assess the economic benefit of a combined local government. When does he intend for this to occur? How much will it cost and who will conduct it? There are other questions that also need communicating back to the region:

What information will be provided to voters about the plebiscite by the Electoral Commission?

How can the Malinauskas government ensure the information on the plebiscite will be set out in a non-biased, transparent manner?

I understand that the government is advising that this is a plebiscite to ask the community a question and not to take immediate action. But, going by the volume of communication I received, this is not what the local people perceive it to be. I have received a high number of emails and phone calls from concerned local residents, but I have not received a constituent call in support of the plebiscite. One Nation believes in bureaucratic efficiencies, but not at the expense of regional representation or the constituent's voice.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (12:04): I thank honourable members who have contributed in the second reading stage of this bill. I acknowledge points that have been made about the time that this has taken. It certainly moved quickly in the other chamber. This sat on the table and was introduced and then the next sitting week was progressed here, albeit being delayed a further week by the non-sitting of parliament last week.

While I acknowledge the concerns that have been raised, I think we made absolutely sure that the conventions of this place were respected in the debate. It is time sensitive, in that we think if the views of people are going to be ascertained it is better to do it when there is a postal ballot going out already, rather than putting the state to the further expense of a postal ballot at another time. We are provided the opportunity with local council elections coming up now.

I think, as has been partially recognised by some speakers and more fully by others, this is not binding on making an amalgamation happen. This is merely asking the people of the Grant district council and the Mount Gambier city council if they support a further examination of the issue. What it does is merely give an indication of whether the people in those council areas support the examination and the possibility that the processes that are already well established and well set out under the Local Government Act and the processes under the Local Government Boundaries Commission are going ahead.

It does no more than that. I think there was mention from the Hon. Sarah Game about how the question would look on the ballot papers that are sent out. The bill before us sets out the proposition. I quote:

Do you support the examination of an amalgamation of the District Council of Grant and the City of Mount Gambier to form a single council?

It is very clear and not loaded with any political supposition. It simply asks: do you support the examination? That is all that the bill does. I understand and recognise concerns that people have about council amalgamation. This bill does not require a council amalgamation. It simply asks: do you support the further examination? We think that is an appropriate thing to do while there is a local council election going on that can then help inform further examination of this.

There is a statutory process set out under the Local Government Act, undertaken by the Local Government Boundaries Commission, and I think quite appropriately it has been foreshadowed that the Productivity Commission will also be involved to look at what the economic impacts of a council amalgamation are, and not just to look to see if there are economies of scale that would happen but to look at both the positive and negative economic consequences of a council amalgamation. We think this is a sensible step. We think this is a democratic step in allowing the good people of the South-East to have a say about whether it is further examined or not.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: What consultation was done with the District Council of Grant and the City of Mount Gambier council on the plebiscite before the plebiscite was announced by the Premier?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. I am advised that, once the government had made the decision that they would introduce legislation, the local government minister spoke to the mayors of both councils and also to the LGA. The Local Government Boundaries Commission was also advised.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Thank you for that answer, Attorney. What was the time frame of those conversations with those mayors before the legislation was introduced in the other place?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have the exact dates, but I am advised that the contact and the conversation of the local government minister with the mayors of both councils took place before legislation was introduced.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: How much would the government save by having the plebiscite together with the local government elections, compared with if they asked the question, say, 12 or 18 months later in a separate plebiscite?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the cost difference would be in excess of $50,000—somewhere around $65,000 increase in the cost is my advice.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Simms–1]—

Page 2, line 3—Delete 'Plebiscite (South East Council Amalgamation)' and substitute:

South East Council Amalgamation (Plebiscite and Oversight)

I will speak very briefly because I did indicate where we are at in terms of our position in my second reading speech. What this amendment seeks to do is require that a poll be conducted before an amalgamation under the Local Government Act 1999 proceeds.

This would insert a new section that says that the Governor cannot make a proclamation amalgamating the District Council of Grant and the City of Mount Gambier to form a single council unless a poll is held in each of the councils and the Electoral Commissioner certifies to the Governor that a majority of electors voting at the poll in the District Council of Grant support the proposition of the poll and a majority of electors voting at the poll in the City of Mount Gambier support the proposition submitted in the poll. The proposition would be: do you support the amalgamation of the District Council of Grant and the City of Mount Gambier to form a single council?

My rationale in proposing this amendment is that this would provide constituents in the councils of Grant and Mount Gambier with real certainty heading into this plebiscite process. It means that they could participate in the plebiscite asking whether or not the government should investigate a merger, knowing that there is no risk that this could be seen as support for a merger itself, knowing that they are not in a position where they could potentially see a forced amalgamation by stealth.

Rather, they would be in a position of knowing that the consultation the government is embarking on is indeed open-ended, knowing that they would then have the right to veto any potential amalgamation proposal. I do think that should be a template adopted when one is talking about amalgamations, to ensure that there is no risk of the needs of smaller councils being subjugated to the larger council bodies.

So, from our perspective in the Greens, this is really important insurance. It is protection for the people of Grant and Mount Gambier. Indeed, if supported, this would be a really important template in terms of dealing with council amalgamations in the future. But I do hope, of course, that the government does not have a council amalgamation agenda in mind because I think it might face a bumpy road in this place.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to thank the honourable member for bringing this amendment to the chamber; however, the government will not be supporting this amendment. I can understand the rationale and I know that many of us, including the Greens, are very fond of democracy and very fond of much consultation. However, we think the pass it out, under our bill, is the appropriate path; that is, to seek the views of the people in the two council areas about whether further examination should occur and then the possibility, depending on that, of following the processes that are set out under the Local Government Act.

The legislation prescribes that the Local Government Boundaries Commission has to seek community views, and we suggest that that is the way that parliament has set down previously for these amalgamations to be investigated. We have also suggested that it would be worthwhile for the Productivity Commission also giving its view in addition to the processes under the Local Government Boundaries Commission.

For that reason, we support the statutory processes that must necessarily take into account community views rather than the Greens suggesting that for this occasion—and I understand this will only apply to this process, not any other possible processes instigated, but to be consistent with any other possible process we prefer the route that is set out under the legislation, if that is something that the people of the South-East want to engage in.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Why is the government not supporting the Greens' amendment to return to the community after the information about amalgamation is gathered to give them autonomy to decide their own future?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I set out before, we think there are processes that are statutorily set down and that is what the Local Government Boundaries Commission does: seek the input and the views of the community.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the Attorney please elaborate on what he describes as 'seek community views' entails?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that the Local Government Boundaries Commission, pursuant to part 2 of the act, must, as part of their process, understand the views of the local communities and the views of the councils affected. Also, on the Local Government Boundaries Commission website, there are guidelines that have been published about how they go about doing that.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Is it the case, though, that if the Electoral District Boundaries Commission feel that community consultation is not required, there is a clause that allows them to effectively get out of community consultation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that, no, not for this proposal. For an administrative proposal, which is a much narrower process, yes, there is such a clause, but for a general proposal, which this would be, no, they cannot, is my advice.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: As I indicated in our second reading speech, we will support the Greens' amendment. We feel it provides clarity and transparency around the process going forward, which is what the good people of the City of Mount Gambier and the District Council of Grant have asked us for in our consultation process.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We will not be supporting the Greens' amendment.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 9

Noes 10

Majority 1

AYES

Centofanti, N.J. Curran, L.A. Franks, T.A.
Game, S.L. Girolamo, H.M. Hood, D.G.E.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Simms, R.A. (teller)

NOES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. Hanson, J.E.
Hunter, I.K. Maher, K.J. (teller) Martin, R.B.
Ngo, T.T. Pangallo, F. Pnevmatikos, I.
Wortley, R.P.

PAIRS

Wade, S.G. Scriven, C.M.

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 2, after line 14—Insert:

(2a) A plebiscite will be regarded as being supported (a successful plebiscite) if the majority of the electors voting in the plebiscite support the proposition submitted.

(2b) The examination of an amalgamation of the District Council of Grant and the City of Mount Gambier to form a single council will only be regarded as being supported by the electors of those councils if both plebiscites held under this Act are successful plebiscites.

A large part of the feedback that we received from the South-East communities was that there was significant confusion around what the government would class as a successful plebiscite to enact the Productivity Commission and the Electoral Boundaries Commission for further investigation. There was a genuine fear amongst the voters that the government would not ensure that there was a proportional representation in the results that would potentially lead to a forced amalgamation, so this amendment seeks to define what a successful plebiscite will look like for the purposes of that plebiscite. It goes on to state that:

The examination of an amalgamation of the District Council of Grant and the City of Mount Gambier to form a single council will only be regarded as being supported by the electors of those councils if both plebiscites held under this Act are successful plebiscites.

That is, there is a proportional representation of that vote and 50 per cent or more of people from the City of Mount Gambier and 50 per cent or more of people from the District Council of Grant must vote yes for the plebiscite to be deemed successful for the purposes of that plebiscite. Obviously, we do recognise that the plebiscite is non-binding and that the minister ultimately has the power of direction despite whatever the outcome.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will just speak briefly. I thank the honourable member for bringing this amendment to the committee stage. I think our opposition to this amendment lies in the outline that the honourable Leader of the Opposition gave at the end: at the end of the day, it gives rise to a process and ultimately a discretion of the minister.

We think the bill sets out that there will be a plebiscite. It sets out that the plebiscite will ask a question about a further examination, and it does not set out what constitutes a success. I know what the government considers will likely give rise to further examination has been spoken about, but it is not set out in the bill, and we think being prescriptive like this is not necessarily in the bill.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I rise on behalf of the Greens to indicate the Greens are supportive of this amendment for the same rationale that I outlined in relation to the amendment that I moved earlier. This is providing the people of Grant and Mount Gambier with some additional insurance in terms of ensuring that communities are not disenfranchised, in terms of ensuring that the voice of smaller communities is not diluted by that of a larger council region. So on that basis, we are certainly supportive of the opposition's amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I rise to indicate that SA-Best will not be supporting the opposition's amendment.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 9

Noes 10

Majority 1

AYES

Centofanti, N.J. (teller) Curran, L.A. Franks, T.A.
Game, S.L. Girolamo, H.M. Hood, D.G.E.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Simms, R.A.

NOES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. Hanson, J.E.
Hunter, I.K. Maher, K.J. (teller) Martin, R.B.
Ngo, T.T. Pangallo, F. Pnevmatikos, I.
Wortley, R.P.

PAIRS

Wade, S.G. Scriven, C.M.

Amendment thus negatived.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [AG–1]—

Page 2, after line 23—Insert:

(4) Without limiting section 54 of the Local Government (Elections) Act 1999, the Electoral Commissioner must, as soon as is reasonably practicable after certifying in accordance with that section the result of a plebiscite held under this section, publish notice of the result of the plebiscite on a website maintained by the Electoral Commissioner.

Note—

This requires the publication of the result of the plebiscite in the District Council of Grant and the result of the plebiscite in the City of Mount Gambier.

This amendment clarifies to make it abundantly clear that the results that are to be published are broken down into each council area. It is a simple amendment. It had been anticipated that is how it would operate, but this, for the sake of absolute clarity, makes it clear that that is how it is to be reported.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I rise to indicate that the opposition will be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I rise on behalf of the Greens to indicate we will also be supporting this amendment. Transparency, of course, is a very good thing.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We will be supporting the amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

New clause 2A.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Simms–1]—

Page 2, after line 23—Insert:

2A—Polls required before amalgamation under Local Government Act 1999 proceeds

(1) Despite Chapter 3 of the Local Government Act 1999, the Governor cannot make a proclamation amalgamating the District Council of Grant and the City of Mount Gambier to form a single council in pursuance of a proposal recommended by the Minister under Part 2 of that Chapter unless, within the 12 month period immediately preceding the making of the proclamation—

(a) a poll is held in each council for the purposes of this section; and

(b) the Electoral Commissioner certifies to the Governor that—

(i) a majority of electors voting at the poll in the District Council of Grant supported the proposition submitted in the poll; and

(ii) a majority of electors voting at the poll in the City of Mount Gambier supported the proposition submitted in the poll.

(2) The proposition to be submitted to electors at a poll held for the purposes of this section is:

Do you support the amalgamation of the District Council of Grant and the City of Mount Gambier to form a single council?

(3) The Electoral Commissioner is responsible for the conduct of a poll held for the purposes of this section.

(4) Subject to this section and the modifications and exclusions prescribed by regulation, the Local Government (Elections) Act 1999 (including regulations made under that Act) applies to a poll held for the purposes of this section as if it were a poll held under that Act.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will not take up too much time. For the reasons that we spoke about in the amendment that the honourable member had in clause 1, we will not be supporting it.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I rise to indicate the opposition will be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: No, we will not be supporting this.

The committee divided on the new clause:

Ayes 9

Noes 10

Majority 1

AYES

Centofanti, N.J. Curran, L.A. Franks, T.A.
Game, S.L. Girolamo, H.M. Hood, D.G.E.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Simms, R.A. (teller)

NOES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. Hanson, J.E.
Hunter, I.K. Maher, K.J. (teller) Martin, R.B.
Ngo, T.T. Pangallo, F. Pnevmatikos, I.
Wortley, R.P.

PAIRS

Wade, S.G. Scriven, C.M.

New clause thus negatived.

Clause 3 passed.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 3, table—After row relating to section 38 of Local Government (Elections) Act 1999 insert:

Section 47 After subsection (2) insert:(3) Despite subsection (2), in relation to a relevant poll, the returning officer must ensure that the arrangement of postal voting papers returned for the relevant poll is such that ballot papers are arranged into separate parcels for each ward of the council to which the relevant poll relates.
Section 52 After its present contents insert:(2) In counting votes cast in a relevant poll to determine the result, the returning officer must ensure that, in relation to each ward of a council to which the relevant poll relates, the number of electors for the ward who voted in support of, and the number of electors for the ward who voted against, the proposition submitted in the poll is determined (in addition to determining the result of the relevant poll for the council as a whole).(3) A provisional declaration of the result of a relevant poll must include details of the determination under subsection (2) for each ward of a council to which the relevant poll relates (being details of the number of electors for the ward who voted in support of, and the number of electors for the ward who voted against, the proposition).
Section 54 After 'result of the poll' insert:, which must, in relation to a relevant poll, include the details required to be included in the provisional declaration of the relevant poll under section 52(3)


This amendment is purely around reporting of the results of the plebiscite and ensuring that there is a specific section in this piece of legislation where the percentage of yes votes and the percentage of no votes in each ward of each council is reported on to the community.

Again, it just comes down to transparency and accountability. The communities of both the City of Mount Gambier and the District Council of Grant told us that they were concerned about the lack of clarity about how public the plebiscite results will be and the need for the communities to be fully informed. They wanted these numbers to be reported on so that they can have visibility over and hold the government's decision-making to account—again, I think a reasonable request. Consequently, this amendment was drafted.

In addition, the minister himself promised that he would be looking at individual wards and that the individual wards would be considered separately in the results. So we are simply putting the minister's words within the legislation.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her amendment. Having had the advantage of taking some advice to make sure it is administratively possible and feasible to report in such a way and having received advice that it will be some further work but, yes, it is possible, we are happy to support that amendment. It is consistent with our position in relation to this bill that the views of people should be known and understood and then the process take place. On that basis, we will be supporting this Liberal amendment.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The Greens are also supportive of the amendment. We thank the opposition for putting it forward. It does bring some further transparency to this process. We welcome the government support for the amendment also.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: SA-Best will be supporting the amendment.

Amendment carried; schedule as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (12:43): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that this bill do now pass.

The Hon. N.J. Centofanti: Divide!

The PRESIDENT: Sorry, there is no division on that particular question. You could have divided on the third reading. The question is that the bill do now pass.

Bill passed.

[Sitting suspended from 12:44 to 14:16.]

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