Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

Leave granted.

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: Last year I was pleased to take up in state parliament concerns which had been expressed by residents of South Australian retirement villages about the way they had been treated by local councils. Many retirement village residents had told me that they are discriminated against in respect of council rates. They are forced to pay twice for construction and maintenance of infrastructure such as paving, footpaths, drainage etc. They pay once to the administering authority of the village and a second time to the local council in the form of rates.

(1) A council must for each financial year, in conjunction with the declaration of rates . . . prepare and adopt a rating policy.

(2) The policy must— [among other things]

(d) address the following: . . . 

(vi) Issues of equity arising from circumstances where ratepayers provide or maintain infrastructure that might otherwise be provided or maintained by the council;

During debate on this clause the government refused to support inclusion of the extra words `with particular reference to retirement villages' which I had moved. That is because the government promised to support another amendment to a related bill, the Statutes Repeal and Amendment (Local Government) Bill. Under the other, related amendment, councils were to be obliged to prepare and publish a report on how they had dealt with applications for rate rebates from retirement villages under this section.

The minister, in this place, assured us on 29 July 1999 that this related amendment would

address the very concerned about retirement villages and other things expressed by the Hon. Mr Gilfillan. The issue is addressed but in another and, we believe, better way.

However this has not occurred as promised. The Statutes Repeal and Amendment (Local Government) Bill lapsed at the end of the autumn session this year and has not been restored to the Notice Paper in the other place. Therefore, there is no requirement for councils to report how they have handled these issues of equity.

To the best of our knowledge, not one village that has applied under the terms of the amendments has received a favourable response. Several have been rejected without a satisfactory explanation while others have given up in frustration. . . . Onkaparinga Council engaged consultants who conducted a thorough review of their rating policy. . . The report states in part:

In the instance of Onkaparinga Council, they have now referred this to the Local Government Management Group, and with council advising that they are not obliged to act on any recommendation from this body. . . Overall, one gains the impression of some rebate claims are being treated as of no consequence and dismissed out of hand, while other councils go through the motion of consulting, then refer the problem to the Financial Management Group for further delay and eventual rejection.

It would seem from this correspondence that councils are ignoring the spirit of this section of the Local Government Act, so I ask the minister, and also with reference to her counterpart in the other place: does she agree that councils have been aided in side-stepping the spirit of the act by the fact that, contrary to the assurances of the minister in the chamber on 29 July 1999, they are not required to report to parliament on how they have handled these issues equitably?   Does the minister agree that the government has once again let down retirement village residents in South Australia?

The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW (Minister for Transport and Urban Planning): No to the second question; but I will find the reasons why the measure has not been introduced and I have not been able to deliver on the undertaking I gave to the honourable member in this place.