 |
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 involvement in debate over whether mayors and chairpersons should have second or casting votes in 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 86.
The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: I move: Page 69, line 15—After `Each member' insert:(including the presiding member)
This amendment relates to procedures at meetings. The Government supports the principle of removing distinctions between the voting rights of the mayor and the chairperson, but it prefers an alternative which would allow for deadlocks to be broken, given both a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of votes, a casting vote. I understand that this is still a matter of some discussion between the Local Government Association and the Government and members generally but, at this stage, the Government believes it should be supported. I understand there is support from SA First on this matter, and I thank the Hon. Terry Cameron for that. The Hon. T.G. CAMERON: SA First accepts the argument for consistency between country and city councils—that is, mayors and chairpersons. Once one accepts the need for consistency, it then becomes a question that, if you gave them only a deliberative vote, you could get deadlocks on the council, and I am not prepared to see that happen. If you do give the mayor or the chairperson both a deliberative and a casting vote, the mayor or the chairperson can always exercise their deliberative vote and, if that ties a matter, then not declare a casting vote and declare the matter lost. SA First will be supporting the Government's position. The Hon. T.G. ROBERTS: The Labor Party understands that a poll is being conducted at the moment amongst councils. I wonder whether the Minister has the results of the poll? The Hon. T.G. Cameron: They are available. We all got a copy. The Hon. T.G. ROBERTS: Did we? The honourable member behind me says he has a copy. I do not. A poll was conducted. Does the Minister have the results? The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: I have some advice that has been provided to me dated the 27th in terms of voting entitlement of mayor and chair. Did you ask whether I had received it or did you want me to read it out?The Hon. T.G. ROBERTS: My understanding is there is no certainty in the result in relation to a recommendation, so I indicate that we will be opposing the amendments of both the Democrats and the Government.
The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: This information makes it clear that they do not like the Democrats or the Democrat amendment. I am not sure that they get a tick on this one. The Hon. Mr Stefani has kindly indicated that he will provide the Hon. Mr Roberts with a copy.
The Hon. T.G. ROBERTS: I am surprised that the Democrats are not loved because I know that the honourable member attends many LGA meetings.The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: It is no surprise to members here and possibly some who may listen occasionally to words from the gallery that my decisions and those of the Democrats are not totally motivated by what might be a populist response from the LGA. If it were, I would find life a very tortuous exercise indeed. I do have some rather alarming news, and I am glad that the Minister is sitting down: I am advised that the Government's proposal is even less popular than the Democrats' proposal when it comes to the LGA. It will have to be a brave Parliament. We will have to sail through antagonist waters to reach a result. I have heard some discussion from people who have presided in positions of mayoralty and chairpersonship in councils. They make a valid point which I am sure you would appreciate, Mr Chairman.
The chair of a meeting does need to exercise an independent role. I regard that as important but I do not believe that it is impossible for a person to exercise an independent role as a chair and yet make a decision on a matter and be able to express their opinion on that matter in a proper voting capacity. I may be corrected, but I understand that you, Mr Chairman, have the right to exercise a deliberative vote if you decide to do so, unless I misread Standing Orders. Am I correct?
The CHAIRMAN: Only on the second or third reading of a Bill.
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: That is enough. That is pretty effective. The point is that, if it is good enough for us, I believe it is good enough for councils in respect of fulfilling both roles. You can chair effectively and independently and you should be able to have the right to exercise a vote. After all is said and done, the presiding people in councils are elected to represent the people. They are not elected to be mute, opinionless chairs. I believe they are entitled to exercise a vote; and, as to the great dilemma about a tied vote, the simple and reasonable procedure is that a tied vote is a lost vote. There is precedent for that in many other areas. You do not have to have this casting vote which then means that a person has two votes or, as I suspect the local government community may like, the only time a presiding person should vote is when there is an equality of votes from the body of the council. I am convinced that my amendment is the most rational and sensible approach to it, but I have heard from the Hon. Terry Roberts that he intends to support the Government's amendment.
The Hon. T.G. Roberts interjecting:
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: Have I misheard you?
The Hon. T.G. Roberts interjecting:
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: You are opposing them both. This is significant, and I want to recap for the record. We now have the Government moving to amend its own Bill. I have moved a brilliant and very effective amendment which appears to have very little support, but the Opposition is going to support the Government's original position with, I would suggest, fat hope of success.
The Committee divided on the amendment:
AYES (10)
Cameron, T.G. Crothers, T.
Davis, L. H. Dawkins, J. S. L.
Griffin, K. T. Laidlaw, D. V. (teller)
Lawson, R. D. Lucas, R. I.
Redford, A. J. Schaefer, C. V.
NOES (9)
Elliott, M. J. Gilfillan, I.(teller)
Holloway, P. Kanck, S.
Roberts, R. R. Roberts, T. G.
Weatherill, G. Xenophon, N.
Zollo, C.
PAIR(S) Pairs
Stefani, J. F. Pickles, C. A.
Majority of 1 for the Ayes. Amendment thus carried.The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I move:
Page 69, lines 17 to 22—Leave out subclauses (6) and (7) and insert:(6) The member presiding at a meeting of a council has a deliberative vote on a question arising for decision at the meeting but does not have, in the event of an equality of votes, a casting vote.
I believe I put the case for this amendment earlier; I will not go through it again. The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: I move: Page 69, lines 17 to 22—Leave out subclauses (6) and (7) and insert:This is essentially consequential on the last division, which the Government won with the support of SA First and the Hon. Mr Crothers. The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: With due respect, I rather suspect that that is not logically correct. I understand that the amendment just passed was to line 15. The Minister has argued that her amendment to lines 17 to 22 is consequential on the amendment to line 15; I do not believe that to be the case. I believe the issue before the Committee at this point is totally separate from the amendment to line 15. Without confusing the issue, it may have been wise for me to support that earlier amendment. I do not think that was of great significance to the main issue now before us as to whether presiding members should have a deliberative and casting vote (which is the Government's amendment), just a deliberative vote (which is my amendment) or, as the Opposition intends, just a casting vote. With due respect to the Minister, I do not believe her amendment is consequential: I think it is a different issue. The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: Perhaps technically what the honourable member says is right, but I moved my first amendment on which we divided in order to facilitate this one. Perhaps, as the honourable member just acknowledged, he should not have voted against me and caused a division and all the rest, because he needed that earlier amendment to move his present amendment. The Hon. Ian Gilfillan: That's quite true; we will not go over that. The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: Therefore, the arguments I gave in moving my first amendment are the same, because I only moved the first amendment to be in a position to move this one now. The Government supports the principle of removing distinctions between the voting rights of a mayor and chairperson but prefers the alternative which would allow for deadlocks to be broken by a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of votes, a casting vote. The Hons Messrs Cameron and Crothers supported the earlier amendment for the reasons I have just given for moving the amendment before us at the present time.(6) In the event of an equality of votes on a question arising for decision at a meeting of a council, the member presiding at the meeting has a second or casting vote.
These changes were vetoed by the House of Assembly on 4 August, without discussion.
By removing the changes, the House of Assembly re-instated the Bill's original provision, which gives different voting rights to mayors, as compared to chairpersons. (Mayors do not have a deliberative vote but do have a casting vote when other votes are tied. In contrast, a Council chairperson always has a deliberative vote, but does not have a casting vote in the event of any tied vote.)
On the 5 August, without calling a division, the Legislative Council agreed not to insist on its amendments.
