 |
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 protect the public's right to challenge the validity of council meetings. 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 83.
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I move: Page 67, lines 34 and 35—Leave out subclause (9). Subclause (9) provides: Neither the validity of a meeting, nor the validity of anything done at a meeting, is affected by failure to give a notice of the meeting to a member of council. I think that further discussion on this matter will be generated when the Government moves its amendment. I am very concerned that such an emphatic and blanket clause should remain in a Bill such as this because, in my view, it leaves it open to the occasion where, for some reason or another, proper process of notice of a meeting has not been complied with. To virtually rule out the scope for a justified reasonable challenge to that meeting with such a subclause is, in our view, unfair and unjust. The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: I move: Page 67, lines 34 and 35—Leave out subclause (9) and insert:(9) The fact that a notice of a meeting has not been given to a member of a council in accordance with this section does not, of itself, invalidate the holding of the meeting or a resolution or decision passed or made at the meeting but the District Court may, on the application of the Minister or a member of the council, annul a resolution or decision passed or made at the meeting and make such ancillary or consequential orders as it thinks fit if satisfied that such action is warranted in the circumstances of the particular case.
The Government accepts that we could do better than we have in the wording of subclause (9) and therefore I have moved the amendment to clarify what we are seeking. What we propose does not remove subclause (9) completely, as the Democrats would wish. We believe that the Democrats' amendment goes a little bit too far—in fact, far too far—in exposing all decisions to challenge on the basis of administrative error.
We believe that the Government amendment to this provision gives appropriate protections and that it clarifies the point that the failure to properly give notice of a council meeting does not, in itself, invalidate the meeting or decisions made at it but, if the circumstances warranted, a court can annul decisions of the meeting on application by the Minister or a member of the council. There is a mirroring amendment to clause 87 for committee meetings.The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: The Government's amendment restricts the application to the Minister or a member of the council. If one were to consider the usefulness of the Government's amendment, it seems to me to be quite unfair that the only application to be considered is to be lodged either by the Minister or a member of the council. For that reason, quite clearly, I do not believe it covers the same area of concern that I have addressed in moving my amendment. I indicate that I am not persuaded by the Government's argument that it goes far enough and I will be opposing the Government's amendment and obviously supporting my own.
The Hon. T.G. ROBERTS: The Labor Party will be supporting the Government's amendment. The Hon. Diana Laidlaw's amendment carried; clause as amended passed.This clause was changed again by the House of Assembly on 4 August 1999.
Under the final wording, only the Minister (not even a member of council) can go to the District Court to challenge the validity of any meeting or any decision or resolution taken or passed at a meeting.
There was no Parliamentary discussion over the changed wording; and the change was accepted by the Legislative Council on 5 August, also without discussion or a vote, with Liberal and Labor both approving the final wording.
