HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2022-11-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Council Amalgamations

The Hon. J.S. LEE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:04): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Acting Minister for Local Government a question regarding council amalgamations.

Leave granted.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: As we know, the Local Government Association of SA has come out against forced amalgamation, but on 6 September, when Premier Peter Malinauskas announced his intention to hold a plebiscite to investigate council mergers in the South-East, he said, 'In my numerous visits to the Limestone Coast, this issue was repeatedly raised,' as well as saying, 'Council mergers have long been a matter of debate in the South-East.'

On Sunday, it was revealed that the South-East voted with an overwhelming 70 per cent against the move, which is contrary to the Premier's statement. My questions to the acting local government minister are:

1. Who were the people that the Premier spoke to on his numerous visits to the Limestone Coast?

2. With over 70 per cent voting against the merger, will the Malinauskas government admit that they got it wrong?

3. Will the minister please explain to the South-East community why the Malinauskas government is not taking their views seriously?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (15:06): What a remarkable question.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The process that was established—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: —was that there would be a plebiscite on whether local residents wanted the pros and cons of an amalgamation further investigated. If the answer had been yes, then that request would have been referred to the Local Government Boundaries Commission. If the answer was no, then no further action would be taken. The answer was no, so no further action will be taken. That to me seems like very much listening to the views of the local community. It seems incredibly similar—

The Hon. R.P. Wortley: Something you never did.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Wortley!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: —to listening to the views of the local community. To ask a question and then to take action or cease to take action on the basis of their response seems very much like listening to the views of the community.

The Hon. N.J. Centofanti interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The Leader of the Opposition is interjecting to say—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The Leader of the Opposition is interjecting to say that they didn't know what they were voting on. On one level, I would say I respect the intellect of my local community—

The Hon. N.J. Centofanti interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Leader of the Opposition, enough!

The Hon. R.P. Wortley interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Wortley, enough!

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I respect the intellect of the members of my local communities, and I think they were able to understand the question. If there was any ambiguity, we really need to ask where that originated from. I suggest that some of that ambiguity originated from those opposite, because they went down to the South-East—a rarity, I might add. They went down to the South-East—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order, on both sides!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: —because they sensed some political advantage—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. N.J. Centofanti interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order, the Leader of the Opposition!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: —and what did they say at their meetings? They held forums, and what did they say at those forums? Did they attempt to point out that the question—

The Hon. N.J. Centofanti interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: —was whether an investigation should occur, or did they deliberately muddy the waters? Did they deliberately indicate that this was about an amalgamation would happen if they voted yes? I think that's an incredibly irresponsible—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! That's enough. Sit down. The minister will be heard in silence, and the minister will conclude her remarks and we will move on.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Thank you, Mr President. So to deliberately misrepresent what the plebiscite was, as those opposite were inclined to do, I think is incredibly irresponsible. However, we are very pleased that the plebiscite has been held and the views of the local community are clear.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Roughly a third were in favour, roughly two-thirds were not in favour of an investigation. That is now the end of the matter.

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