Local Government Bill: Election of Mayors, Chairpersons, Councillors-at-large

Debate on the Local Government package of Bills. i.e.

Local Government Bill 1999,
Local Government (Elections) Bill 1999,
Statutes Repeal and Amendment Bill (Local Government) 1999

took place in the Legislative Council over two weeks: from 27 July to 5 August 1999. For ease of reference on the Democrats web site the debates have been separated into individual pages, each page containing an edited transcript of only one aspect of the total package.

This page covers only the Democrats moves to amend provisions for election of Mayors, Chairpersons, and councillors-at-large. For an index of other topics covered in the Local Government Bills, see the Democrats Local Government page, or the 1999 Budget Session Index

These amendments clarify that it is only in two sets of exceptional circumstances that a principal member would be appointed rather than chosen by members of the council.

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: The clause relates to `principal member of council' and the intention is that:

So subclause (1) explains how a mayor or a chair can be appointed principal member. In relation to both paragraphs (a) and (b), I have moved an addendum, a footnote, which refers that appointment to section 10 of this Act or section 8 of the Local Government (Elections) Act, which allows for a principal member to be appointed under certain circumstances.

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I cannot clearly recall, except that I think it is where there has been an amalgamation or some sort of extraordinary circumstance.

The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: All the information that the honourable member is seeking is on file before him, in the Bill (page 13). The circumstances relate to when a council is first created and the first members can be appointed.

The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: I appreciate the way in which the Minister wants to deal with this. I am entitled to ask the questions, and it was a simple answer. The churlish comments about its being available for me to read are taken on board. If the Minister wants to play that game, that is fine: I can be difficult all afternoon if the Minister wants me to be.

The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: I appreciate that. I did say in my contribution on clause 1 that my view has always been that chairs or mayors of councils should be elected from amongst their own, similar to the way in which we deal with positions in the Executive arm of Government in this place or, indeed, in the Parliament. Briefly, the reason I say that is that we have seen occasions when councils have become dysfunctional and where, indeed, the directly elected mayor has lost the confidence of the majority of members of the balance of the council. We have seen two recent examples of that: the Port Lincoln council and also the City of Adelaide. I have always been of the view that there should not be direct elections of mayors but that they should come from amongst their number. I appreciate that I do not have the numbers or the support in relation to that view, but it is appropriate that I go on record as saying that. I also think that we need to monitor it carefully.

I know that the Minister has attempted to address that issue by having some form of circuit breaker, but I would prefer one that is available to the Parliament: that is, if the chair or the mayor loses the confidence of the council, it can simply and easily replace the mayor. Unfortunately, with direct elections of mayors, that is not possible. I sincerely hope that we do not have a recurrence of the problems at Port Lincoln and in the City of Adelaide, but I suspect that we will, because it is the very nature of the political process in which we are involved.

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: By way of clarification, I was on the right track and I have confirmed that with an adviser in the gallery. My amendment is aimed to ensure that the appointment of a principal member would occur only under two quite tightly confined opportunities. I have referred back to clause 10, and that is quite clearly defined. I do not have section 8 of the Local Government (Elections) Act before me, but that is the purpose of the amendment: instead of using the general word `appointed', which does not carry any particular restriction, this amendment and subsequent amendments define the range in which the appointment can be made to clause 10 of this Bill and section 8 of the Local Government (Elections) Act.

The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: The Government opposes the amendments. They remove the capacity for councils to have a combination of area and ward councillors. The Government's position is that councils should be allowed flexibility and to rely on the regular council review of composition and representation required by the Bill and the capacity for electors to make submissions proposing changes.

While we are dealing with the Hon. Terry Roberts' amendments it is appropriate to indicate that a much more substantial amendment of mine will attempt to deal with this interesting challenge of what should be a mix of the methods to elect councillors. I will not go through with members what is in the Bill, because I am sure that they understand what is there. I oppose it on the basis that I believe that subclause (3) is too proscriptive on a council.

The Democrats strongly support election at large as a principle, but we believe that it should be the right of a council to make a determination as to how it is elected, and that it should be able to make a decision as to the mixture. It could elect all its members by election at large as many councils do, by proportional representation, or by wards if that is what it prefers.

The Democrats feel—and I particularly feel very strongly about this—that we must move away from first past the post in single member type electorate structures, and the best way to ensure as far as one can that that is avoided is to have at least three members representing each ward, if there is in fact a decision to have elections in wards, because a constituency that has to elect three members is provided a degree of proportional representation through the way that the formula works out.

Because that is our intention I will oppose the Labor amendment. I have an amendment to implement what I have just outlined and, if that is unsuccessful, I will oppose subclause (3), which I think is quite an arrogant instruction by this Parliament to local government as to how it should constitute the members who are elected to councils.

The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: The Government does not support the Hon. Ian Gilfillan's amendment, just as I indicated earlier that we do not support the Hon. Terry Roberts' amendment. To ease the mind of the Hon. Angus Redford so he does not think that he is standing alone waving the white flag, the provision in this Bill is no different from the provision in the current Act.

The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: The current Act was drafted well before we went through the recent round of council amalgamations, where we reduced the number of councils from about 140 down to about 80, with the likelihood that that number will be further reduced. I accept what the Minister says and that it is no different, but in the context of the local government landscape it is significantly different.

The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: Some 52 of 68 councils in South Australia have wards, and that—

The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: It is interesting that something pleases you. That happened after the amalgamation process. There can be doom and gloom from the Hon. Mr Redford, but I think the facts speak for themselves.

The Hon. Terry Roberts' amendments negatived; the Hon. Ian Gilfillan's amendments carried.

Page 50, lines 3 to 5—Leave out subclause (3) and insert new subclause as follows:

(3) If the area of a council is divided into wards, there must be at least three councillors to represent each ward.

My amendment leaves out subclause (3) on page 50 and inserts a new subclause. I indicated earlier in the Committee stage that I believe that the Bill, as currently drafted, is too proscriptive. The current draft of subclause (3) provides:

If the area of a council is divided into wards, the total number of councillors who may hold office under subsection 2(a) (if any), cannot exceed one-half of the total number of councillors who may hold office under subsection (2)(b).

The interpretation is that there is a prescribed limit on the number of councillors who can be elected, at large, compared with those elected in a ward system. We believe that councils themselves are the mature and responsible body to decide those sorts of matters without their having the prescription of the Act. However, again I repeat that, because I think it is a basic tenet of democracy to have a proportional representation as the method of selection (the choice of election by ward), my amendment would determine that there would need to be at least three members chosen to be elected in each ward. In our view that gives an opportunity for minority groups to have a good chance of having members elected whereas if is it one, or even—

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I will come to that; SA First may well be targeting its cut. Either one or two very substantially reduces the opportunity for minority groups to get elected. That is the purpose of the amendment, but I would like to reflect on both the original contribution by the Hon. Angus Redford and interjections by the Hon. Terry Cameron regarding the effectiveness of groups. Somewhat to my surprise, many councils in South Australia chose the election at large, in other words, proportional representation.

There is absolutely no evidence that any of the formalised political Parties have emerged either as being identified or as taking any active interest. However, certain people who have shared interests—they may have interests in an area or a particular bent on environment or small business—can work as a group to cooperate. That is surely what this Parliament would like to see happen in local government. I have no concerns at all that by encouraging an election at large in proportional representation we will encourage something we supposedly dislike, in other words, the involvement of political Parties. It is a strange irony that virtually all of us are here representing political Parties. So, what is so horrific and devastating about political Parties being involved?

However, I emphasise that nothing either my amendment or the encouragement of election at large does will do anything to encourage political Parties into a local government system. It is a cultural issue. If the culture of the community says that we want to have political Parties involved in local government, they will go in whatever system of election is in operation. There is historical political Party representation in other States. We have not been tempted to follow that path, and anything we do here today will not make any difference to that.

The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: The Government is opposed to the Hon. Terry Roberts' amendment. We believe it is consequential on the defeat of an earlier amendment, but it is clear that he wants to treat it separately. I have already indicated that the Government does not support the amendment moved by the Hon. Ian Gilfillan. I think that in his argument in support of his amendment he in fact argued his way out of it by saying that councils are mature and responsible enough to decide for themselves the way in which they should progress these matters. We could agree entirely and believe that the stipulated position that the Democrats have presented by saying that `if an area of a council is divided into wards there must be at least three councillors to represent each ward' removes the flexibility for councils and certainly takes away the capacity of electors to make submissions on proposed changes to such matters.

The Hon. T.G. ROBERTS: We oppose the Democrats' amendment. In terms of contribution, I agree with the Minister: the honourable member actually outlined a good cause for minorities to survive in a big dirty campaign within a local election, but he then talked himself and me out of it by saying that whatever culture existed Party politics would be involved. Of course, that is a mature understanding of what already exists. I am sure that the Democrats will survive in a culture where like minds want to elect people who have similar interests by doing deals with other major Parties and other interest groups within the community. It is all part of the democratic processes. I am sure that whatever is left, whether the provisions of the original Bill or any of the amendments, the Democrats will continue to involve themselves in local government with or without the support of the amendment framed by the honourable member.

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: It looks as if my amendment has not been thoroughly thought through by the Opposition—that is the most complimentary remark I can make about it. I do not intend to extend the business of the Committee: we have a lot to get through. My anticipation is that my amendment will be lost. I appreciate the Hon. Terry Cameron's support: I think he has had the wisdom to see through it. But we will not have the numbers. I indicate that, in the event of my losing my amendment, we will support the ALP's amendment to delete clause 3 in its entirety.

	Extract from Hansard Legislative Council 29 July 1999

Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council		Parliament Index 1999 Budget Session Index Browse by Subject About the SA Parliament Hansard on line