 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
Debate on the Local Government
package of Bills. i.e.
This page covers only the Democrats moves to amend provisions covering public access to the register of members pecuniary interests. For an index of other topics covered in the Local Government Bills, see the Democrats Local Government page, or the 1999 Budget Session Index |
Clause 70.
The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: I move:
Page 58, after line 32—Insert: (3) However, an application to inspect the register or to obtain a copy of the register (other than by a member of the council) must be made in writing to the chief executive officer. (4) The chief executive officer must keep a record of the name and address of a person who makes an application under subsection (3), and of the date on which the application is made. (5) A member of the council is entitled at any reasonable time to inspect a record kept under subsection (4). This amendment requires that persons wishing to inspect the members' register of interest must apply in writing to the CEO, who must keep a record of the name and address of applicants, which is available for members to inspect. The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I am absolutely stunned by this amendment. It is a police state come into local government. An elector, a member of the public, seeking public information about a council or councillors who are representing them and for whom they will be or have been asked to vote, will have their names recorded as if it is a petty offence. I hope that other members will realise the implication of this, in particular the SA First Leader, the Hon. Terry Cameron, who, I believe, leads a Party that prides itself on representing human freedoms and basic rights. This provision requires that any person who goes into a council office to ask for details of the register—a public register of the interests of a councillor—have their name and contact details recorded, for what could be all time, but for what earthly purpose other than some form of follow-up, and I will not use the word `vindictiveness'? I would ask the Minister, who I hope has been properly briefed on this, what on earth is the human rights justification for demanding that a person who asks to have access to what is publicly available information, kept in the interests of open government, have their details recorded? It certainly does not apply to anyone who wants details of members of this place. What is the justification?The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: There are a variety of reasons for the Government's moving this amendment. The first relates to the fact that making the register of interests publicly available is a new provision for local government in South Australia. Sometimes steps forward are made in leaps and bounds and sometimes it is slower; nevertheless, it is progress. The Government thinks that the fact that this register of interests is available to the public is an important principle, but on behalf of a wide range of councils, particularly in small communities where there is either some misgiving or nervousness about this measure—and they are close communities—the Local Government Association has asked that this provision be put in place as outlined in the amendment I have moved.
It is not an unusual provision. The Hon. Mr Gilfillan asked for an explanation, and I am trying to provide it. The honourable member should be aware that, in other States that have these provisions for public access to a register of pecuniary and general interests of members of local government, they also have this provision, so it is not as if South Australia is pulling back from what is the practice in other States. Mr Gilfillan should consider it an important step forward that this Bill provides for the register to be public in the future.
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: If the Government withdraws its amendment, we can revisit clause 70 later if there has been some rethinking. The point I make and have made previously is that this Bill and the Democrats' approach to it is very much a recognition of the maturity and responsibility of local government. We cannot have it both ways. If you are to get the freedom from us, the Democrats, to make the decisions and take the responsibility, you have to take the burden of the same responsibilities that any responsible tier of government would take. It does not matter whether there is a written list as far as availability to the public is concerned. The argument that, unless this is in place, councillors are exposed to a whole lot of ridicule and exposure is a nonsense, because even with the amendments in place anyone who wants to can get the information. They are not protecting a thing for the councillors. That argument falls flat on its face as soon as it is put up.
It has absolutely no significance to protecting the privacy or otherwise of a councillor. It simply chronicles in detail those citizens who sought the information which in any tier of government is becoming more and more abundantly available, so we have openness and transparency and the expectation of honest performance by councillors or members of Parliaments. We can play with the words of the amendment and it will not make any difference. The original wording in the Bill must have been subject to a lot of conversation and a whole lot of nervous councillors saying, `My God, people will know what I have on my register of private interests'. The amendment is not protecting them at all. It is a worthless amendment. The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: I move to amend my amendment as follows: Delete proposed new subclause (4). Proposed new subclause (5) would then become proposed new subclause (4), which provides: (4) A member of the council is entitled at any reasonable time to inspect an application made under subsection (3). Amendment to amendment carried; amendment as amended carried; clause as amended passed.