Local Government Amendment (Amalgamations and Boundary Changes) Bill

Debate resumed from 30 June.

The Hon. A. B. KELLY [8.06 p.m.]: The proposed changes to the Local Government Act are the Government’s response to the needs of local government. One need is that some councils want to pursue voluntary amalgamation. In the bush that is vital. The Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Rural Affairs, Harry Woods, has consistently said that a strong rural local council can be a significant player in regional development. That is particularly the case in country New South Wales. Voluntary amalgamation is another way for councils to be involved in regional development.

Regional development means jobs and prosperity for regional centres and rural towns across New South Wales. The Minister in his second reading speech said that there is an unusual situation in the northern tablelands. From my history in local government I remember that a number of doughnut councils always resisted having discussions with neighbouring councils. These included Armidale, Dumaresq, Albury, Hume, Goulburn and Mulwarree. At present the airport for the city of Armidale is in Dumaresq shire. The Armidale and Dumaresq councils have seen the advantages of pooling their resources for the benefit of ratepayers, and that is why they are pursuing voluntary amalgamation.

Those two councils have approached the Minister with a view to voluntary amalgamation. As I said, for a long time Dumaresq did not consider the advantages of amalgamation. As a result of this bill some 24 councils are considering their future. In rural and regional New South Wales some councils provide all the infrastructure and services while their immediate neighbouring councils gain most of the rate revenue and contribute nothing to the provision of facilities and services that the ratepayers use daily.

In 1980 Dubbo Municipal Council, as it then was, was surrounded by Talbragar Shire Council. The ratepayers in Talbragar shire contributed nothing to the library, the swimming pool, roads, street lighting, the town hall, the senior citizens centre, waste and garbage disposal, tourism, main street development and other regional development
Page 1863
in the city of Dubbo. Talbragar and Dubbo councils amalgamated in 1981.

To digress for a moment, I understand that it is proposed to include a provision for referendums in the Act. One does not need to be Einstein to work out how the ratepayers in the former Talbragar Shire Council area, who used the services and facilities provided by the residents in the Dubbo council area every day when they travelled to the city, hospital, airport, swimming pool or library but made no contribution to those facilities, would have voted in a referendum to amalgamate.

They would have unanimously supported non-amalgamation. They would not support a referendum that would make them contribute to something in the future that they are already getting without making a contribution to it. This bill is about giving councils a say in their future. Councils are in the best position to judge their long-term viability and how they can provide the necessary service and infrastructure to ratepayers. This is not forced amalgamation as the Opposition would have one believe. The Opposition does not seem to understand that the Act has contained a provision to force amalgamation since 1919. The then Minister, who happened to be my local member at the time, the Hon. Gerry Peacocke -

The Hon. D. J. Gay: A fine fellow.

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: I agree. In 1993 he put that same provision into the Act. The Carr Government will not force amalgamation. That has been our policy from the outset. The Minister has stated that there will be no forced amalgamation. The Government has said that it is its policy and if any person wishes to look at Labor Party policy, which is on the Internet site http://nsw alp.labor.net.au/policy/policy.localgovernment.htm, its policy has been and continues to be no forced amalgamation. It is not just a matter of the Minister changing his mind; he would have to change the minds of 860 delegates at the Local Government Conference, so it will remain Labor Party policy.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: It will only remain if you pass our amendments.

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: Why didn’t you put them into the 1993 Act under Gerry Peacocke?

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Because I wasn’t here.

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: Why didn’t Gerry Peacocke? Why wasn’t it put into the Act in the years since 1919? It has not been used in that time, although it has been there all the time. Only when two or more councils agree to amalgamate following a rigorous consultation process will it proceed. On employment, the Minister has stated that he would protect the rights of workers in any possible voluntary amalgamation. In rural areas local councils are often the major employers.

The impact on employment from forced redundancy in country areas is critical. With the doughnut council amalgamation, there should not be too many changes of employment. A number of us who come from the country would realise that amalgamation of councils from a fair distance away could force some problems in the transfer of staff from towns when staff are vital for the future of those towns. It would also be unfair to employees if entitlements and benefits accrued in councils were lost due to an amalgamation. When it is time for proclamation for a new amalgamated council following the decisions by the councils involved, the Minister will ensure that the rights and entitlements of staff are preserved.

This will mean, among other things, preservation of employment conditions as if the employee is continuing with the same employer, subject to the same remuneration and benefits and with the same duties until a new award or agreement is reached. It will also mean preservation of all leave and superannuation entitlements within the council and that no forced redundancies as a result of amalgamations can occur within three years of an amalgamation. Unions, the local government, industry and the affected councils will be consulted during the drafting of these proclamations.

Since the bill was proposed I have received phone calls and visits from general managers and mayors throughout country New South Wales. The majority of those mayors who have contacted me are members of the National Party, some have been candidates for the National Party and they are saying "No referendums". They have been to the Minister today -

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Name them.

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: The Mayor of Guyra was here this afternoon and the former Mayor of Wellington rang me this morning. If they are forced to have a referendum before an amalgamation there will not be any amalgamation. I support the bill unamended.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Is Ron Hoenig a member of the National Party?

Page 1864

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: He is not one of the ones that contacted me.

The Hon. I. COHEN [8.15 p.m.]: I have a number of concerns about the Local Government Amendment (Amalgamations and Boundary Changes) Bill. I heard the comments of the previous speaker and have no objection in principle to a number of amalgamations or rationalisations if the proper process is followed and if there is adequate community consultation and public participation. A number of people representing the Government in various capacities are keen for these reforms to be passed. The comment is often made that there is not a great deal of interest in local government outside Byron shire where I come from, and I disagree with that strongly. There is strong community interest in local politics and more and more communities are taking an interest and participating in local government.

It is important that if there is to be change at the local government level it is done in such away as to achieve, where possible, a great degree of community consensus. Once upon a time this Chamber was a repository of non-doing. There has been a change in local government and people are now realising that they have an opportunity to participate at that important level of government. It should be treated with more respect than it was in the past because it is not constitutionally recognised. Communities should be adequately represented at that level.

The Greens oppose the bill because it allows forced amalgamations to occur and it is the Greens policy to condemn forced amalgamations. The bill also allows for councils to defer elections, which the Greens are also totally opposed to. Clause 218F is the key to forced amalgamations. The Greens will be moving amendments in Committee to ensure that this does not occur. Clause 218F deals with the referral of proposals for examination and report. On making or receiving a proposal, the Minister must refer it for examination and report to the Boundaries Commission or to the director-general. The director-general must furnish his report to the Boundaries Commission for review and comment.

The Minister may then recommend to the Governor that the proposal be implemented with such other modifications as the Minister determines and may do so even if the modifications constitute a new proposal. I have great concerns about that reference to "such other modifications as the Minister determines". That is a dangerous precedent, particularly with a Minister who in conservation circles is not known for his balance and openness when dealing with issues that he has been involved in. I cite particularly his role as the member for Clarence on a number of forest issues and the endangered bats at Maclean, when he acted in a way that was not becoming of a Minister.

It seems as though the Minister can still recommend forced amalgamations even if the councils do not agree and there is no such recommendation from the Boundaries Commission or the director-general. The Government went into the March 1999 election with a local government policy. Specifically, the introduction to the policy stated: "Carr Labor Government will . . . oppose forced council amalgamations". Additionally, the Minister has stated on numerous occasions in the House that he will not go down the forced amalgamation path. For instance, on 3 June David Barr asked the Minister:

If there is a public inquiry into two or more councils regarding an amalgamation proposal and there is no agreement between the two affected councils after the inquiry process, will the Minister force these councils to amalgamate?

The Minister said "No". Similarly, on 1 June I asked whether the Carr Government will continue to oppose forced amalgamations and whether it remains government policy. The Greens made representations to the Premier during the election campaign regarding forced amalgamations because of their concern. The Greens were relieved when the Premier was willing to put in writing that the Australian Labor Party would not proceed with that undemocratic process. I asked whether the Premier stood by his promise and commitment that no forced council amalgamations occur, to which the Treasurer replied:

The Government has no proposal for any forced amalgamations of local Government councils.

Currently the Minister argues that the 1993 Act allows for forced amalgamations to occur. However, this bill significantly increases when they may occur. Chapter 9, part 1, division 2 of the 1993 Act deals with what must be done before areas can be constituted or altered. Section 218 states that if there is a proposal the Minister must refer it to the Director-General or the Boundaries Commission. The Director-General deals with minor alterations or variations and the commission deals with major proposals. The Minister may then recommend to the Governor that the proposal be implemented with such modifications arising out of the report of the Director-General or the commission. However, the section states quite clearly that the modifications must not constitute a new proposal.

Page 1865

Under the 1993 Act the Minister could not propose forced amalgamations if the Boundaries Commission did not recommend them. In this bill the modifications can constitute a brand new proposal and under proposed clause 218F (4) the Minister can now go against the recommendations of the Boundaries Commission entirely. The bill provides a much stronger amalgamation power than is already in the Act. The Greens believe that in light of ALP policy, and the Minister’s statement in the House, no forced amalgamation provisions should be locked into the legislation. We are pleased that a Government amendment now specifies that the Minister cannot recommend a new proposal to the Governor.

However, the Greens are still concerned that the Boundaries Commission can recommend that councils amalgamate even if one of the councils does not want it. The Minister can then recommend to the Governor that those councils amalgamate. In the Greens view if a council does not want to amalgamate that should be the end of the matter. The Greens will move an amendment in Committee to address that issue. The bill gives councils that wish to consider amalgamation the right to defer the September 1990 election to 31 December 2000.

The Greens are concerned that many councils are jumping at the opportunity to consider the issue of amalgamation simply so they do not have to go to the polls this year rather than because they really support amalgamations. The Greens will move an amendment in Committee to ensure that does not occur. The Greens will also move an amendment in Committee that ensures that no forced amalgamations can occur. In December 1998 the Minister for Local Government in a press release made the following points:

Harry Woods today called on the Richmond River and Casino councils to put off amalgamation talks until after the local government elections in September next year.

Mr Woods said it was clear from a recent survey of Richmond River Shire residents that the councils had more work to do if they wanted to convince people of the benefits they believed amalgamation offered.

If the councils wish to re-activate their proposal for amalgamation after March next year, I believe it would be appropriate for them to delay that decision until after the council elections due in September.

It appears that the Minister has done a complete backflip on this issue. Last night I spoke to the Minister about this matter and he does not remember attending a meeting of approximately 200 people at Evans Head on 29 December. A number of sources have told me that at the meeting the mayor and other councillors were booed by people concerned and angry at being confronted with an amalgamation between the Richmond River Shire Council, a coastal council, and Casino Council. Whilst those councils may have had historic links in the past, these days few people go to Casino to do shopping or attend to their daily activities; they go to either Lismore or Ballina.

I have been told that 36 per cent of people from Casino go to the coast for holidays - 32 percent from Lismore and 6 per cent around the shire. It is quite clear that there are cultural links on the coast, particularly with the indigenous Bundjalong people. Their links are not with Casino but up and down the coast. As I understand it, there is a clear connection between even Wardell and McLean shires rather than Casino and Richmond River.

I live in the region and many recommendations of those in the community to whom I have spoken were that Casino and Kyogle should have a much more reasonable relationship than stretching the boundaries from the coast to inland. Local people feel strongly about many issues, one of which is that they do not wish to pursue that type of amalgamation. It is incumbent on the Minster to consider these issues and to consider the feelings of the people.

The Hon. A. B. Kelly spoke about doughnut councils in other areas. In Albury there is a great deal of concern about the amalgamation of Albury and Hume councils. Recently when I was there people told me that they are not so much concerned about amalgamation itself but fear there will be no election in September if those councils consider amalgamation. They are concerned about the Albury highway dispute that has been an ongoing festering sore in the community. They want to guarantee that those two councils will go to an election. I have heard many statements to the contrary but I think it is reasonable that people from all shires throughout the State go to an election at the end of the four-year period. Four years for State elections is the maximum term of tenure in this country.

It is reasonable for those people to vote in the next election on the fixed date and deal with the amalgamation issue as an election issue. Later new councillors will be elected on the basis that amalgamation was on the agenda during that election. That would be the most adequate and effective way of dealing with this situation and that would be democracy in action. I received a letter dated 29 June from Margaret Hole, President of the Law Society of New South Wales, who said:

Page 1866

I am writing to express the serious concern and reservations of the Law Society of New South Wales at the principle underlying the proposed procedures for amalgamation and associated postponement of elections contained in the above Bill which has just been introduced into Parliament.

The Law Society is not opposed to the concept itself of an amalgamation of councils subject to comprehensive public consultation or a referendum process.

As formulated, the procedures appear to be in breach of the principles of Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: "Peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development".

Australia, as a signatory to those covenants, together with its constituent States and Territories, is committed to respect and observe those economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights.

A procedure introduced by an elected government, which allows for:

•voluntary amalgamation between two or more councils, without public consultation or;

•an amalgamation following a Ministerially directed inquiry not open to the public

cannot be seen to be democratically based.

When viewed in the light of a possible Ministerial order, or a succession of orders, postponing the election of popular representatives, there appears to be a concerted action designed to force on local government electors, without choice, a political regime designed to thwart and prevent the election of locally based representatives. It is such locally elected representation which is at the heart of the democratic process in forwarding and defending the rights of citizens within their local communities.

I ask that the Bill be deferred to a Select Committee to consider its effect and the denial of due electoral process.

That is signed by Margaret Hole, President of the Law Society of New South Wales. The example of the Richmond River and Casino shire councils merger is interesting as it highlights many of the concerns that the Greens have about amalgamation. The fact that a majority vote of council is perceived as a voluntary amalgamation was put to the people in Richmond River. After a Morgan poll, which received a 44 per cent response rate, the outcome was that 61 per cent of respondents opposed the proposed amalgamation of the Richmond River and the Casino shires.

I have also received a copy of a letter sent to the Minister for Local Government by Councillor Ray Jeffrey of the Richmond River Shire Council dated 18 June. In his letter Councillor Jeffrey outlines a number of reasons for his opposition, including that there may be other alternatives that might consider other issues, and common environmental problems and their management. The ability of councils to manage environmental, social and economic issues must be properly assessed before amalgamations proceed. Dr David Brockhurst, a lecturer in ecosystems management at the University of New England, was on the radio this week talking about the amalgamation of local councils. He commented:

It’s important to consider ecological issues and social identities . . . With current levels of government and resources becoming fragmented, we need to find practical, regional frameworks that manage social systems and their operation.

The Greens are not opposed to amalgamation, but we believe amalgamations should follow a carefully considered decision by the community. The Greens councillor on Concord Council, Therese Doyle, also has expressed concern about the amalgamation of Drummoyne and Concord councils. Councillor Doyle said:

Bigger and fewer municipalities means diluted representation for residents . . . Government needs to be brought closer to the people, not further removed.

Councillor Doyle is one of many inner-west councillors who hold that amalgamations should be put to a referendum. Concord Mayor, Peter Woods, the President of the Local Government Association of New South Wales and the moving force behind Concord Council amalgamating with Drummoyne Council, claims that his council does not have a big enough rate base to be economically viable. According to Councillor Doyle:

Concord is experiencing a population boom. By 2010, households will have increased by approximately 30%. Amalgamation is no more than an ideologically inspired move by the economic rationalists.

The Greens are concerned that there may be some very negative consequences if amalgamations occur, whether they be forced or not. One of those relates to employment. The Federated Municipal and Shire Council Employees Union has expressed concern about the lack of protection for workers in terms of redundancy issues and the maintenance of wages and conditions if staff are transferred. The union did propose amendments that would have protected the rights of employees in the event of amalgamations.

Essentially, those amendments sought to ensure that there would be no forced employee redundancies due to amalgamations and that employees, if transferred, would be entitled to the same wages and entitlements as they were before the amalgamations. However, the amendments have
Page 1867
been withdrawn, as requested by the union, as the Minister gave a ministerial undertaken in his speech in reply to the second reading debate regarding protection provisions. In an open letter to the crossbenchers dated 30 June the union stated:

Since writing to you we have had the opportunity to listen to the second reading speech of the Minister for Local Government . . . The Minister has now given a public and very firm commitment that employee protection provisions shall be implemented by the state government prior to any amalgamations proceeding under this legislation.

Following discussions with members of the Lower House, the MEU is confident that the government shall take such further action as is necessary to secure employee protection provisions relating to council amalgamations.

We hope, for the sake of the union’s employees, that this does indeed occur. The Greens are concerned that councils may lose valuable services when amalgamations take place. This may all be in the name of efficiencies. In Committee, the Greens will move an amendment to ensure that the Boundaries Commission, when undertaking an inquiry into any amalgamation proposal, must take into consideration any potential loss of services.

The bill leaves it open as to whether an inquiry is necessary if there is a proposal to amalgamate. It appears that when all affected councils have agreed upon amalgamation a public inquiry will not be required, although the Minister will be empowered to order a public inquiry if circumstances so warrant. The Greens believe that there should be a Boundaries Commission inquiry for all proposals to amalgamate. The public should be notified, through advertisements in local newspapers, about the pending inquiry and be entitled to appear at the inquiry and make submissions. The Boundaries Commission should take into account the submissions and oral evidence presented at the inquiry. The Greens will be moving amendments to address that issue.

Finally, the Greens are of the view that any amalgamation proposal and ward structure - or no ward structure, as the case may be - can be implemented only if the proposal is supported by decisions made at constitutional referendums conducted by each of the councils affected by the proposal. In other words, the residents and ratepayers should have input to the amalgamation proposal and council structure after the amalgamation. There is a great deal of concern in the community about the amalgamation proposals.

The Greens would give their support to this measure if we believed, and were given adequate evidence to support such a belief, that the Government is acting in a manner that clearly reflects the will of the majority of members of our community. As I said earlier, I believe the culture of local governments and those participating in local government has changed greatly. However, I have fears that we could be moving towards setting up councils on a larger scale if ward changes are introduced. How will we be able to stop wards consisting of a very small number of constituents?

Small wards would put a great deal of extra power in the hands of major political parties. That flies in the face of an historical change taking place whereby more and more small groups and independents are gaining the confidence of and leading and representing their communities, as is the wish of the community. There is a trend away from voting for major parties, as was the habit of the past. If the Government is seriously interested in moving towards a democratic resolution of this matter, it will take heed of the positions adopted by the Greens and accept the amendments that I will move in Committee.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [8.38 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports, in principle, the Local Government Amendment (Amalgamations and Boundary Changes) Bill. The briefings that we received on the bill indicated that the purpose of the bill is to provide a mechanism by which councils interested in genuine discussions about amalgamation could seek from the Minister approval to defer their local government elections. The bill will facilitate voluntary amalgamations of council areas by providing for the postponement of the council elections due in September 1999, when councils are actively formulating an amalgamation proposal, and by streamlining the processes laid down in the Local Government Act 1993 for dealing with such proposals.

Councils that have actively considered an amalgamation or submitted a formal voluntary amalgamation proposal may seek the postponement of their election by ministerial order in the Government Gazette, for up to 12 months in the first instance. This will enable them to concentrate on reform without the distraction of having to face an election at a critical time in the reform process.

However, in no case can an election be postponed beyond the end of the year following the postponement order - 31 December 2000 for postponement of the elections due in September 1999. I note that some honourable members have proposed amendments which would bring that date to early September, that is, prior to the Olympic Games, but I do not know whether they will continue with those amendments.

Page 1868

The Minister will have power to revoke such an order, in which case elections must be held within four months. Existing public notification requirements which simply duplicate consultative processes already taken by affected councils and notices given in relation to the holding of a public inquiry will be omitted. I will move an amendment to spell out what involvement there should be in understanding the wishes of the people, the ratepayers, in councils which are considering amalgamation.

The bill also provides that if all affected councils have agreed upon amalgamation, a public inquiry will not be required - that is a bone of contention with this legislation - although the Minister will be empowered to order a public inquiry if circumstances so warrant. The Christian Democratic Party is concerned about a significant change from the Local Government Act 1993, which states:

218 The next step

. . .

(2) The Minister may recommend to the Governor that the proposal be implemented with such modifications arising out of the Boundaries Commission’s or Director-General’s report or such modifications as the Minister determines, if the Minister is of the opinion that the modifications do not constitute a new proposal.

That restricted the flexibility of the Minister; he could proceed only if the modification did not constitute a new proposal. The same words are included in the amending bill, although I understand that the Government will seek to amend them. New section 218F states:

Referral of proposal for examination and report

. . .

(3) If a proposal that is not supported by one or more of the councils affected by it has been referred to it by the Director-General under subsection (1):

. . .

(4) (b) . . . and may do so even if of the opinion that the modifications constitute a new proposal.

The original Act said "do not constitute a new proposal" but the amending bill says "constitute a new proposal". That substantial change in the Minister’s powers is of concern to honourable members in spite of the Minister’s frequent statements that he is not promoting forced amalgamations. The bill appears to have the potential for him to do that.

I am pleased that the Minister has recognised that change, although it is not clear where the change came from. It was not demanded by him and may be a drafting error, or perhaps a bureaucrat thought it would give the Minister greater power. The Government’s foreshadowed amendment No. 2 will restore the original words, and I am pleased about that. It is important that I record how important it is for members of Parliament to carefully scrutinise legislation because the word "not" could have an important impact on local government.

The bill refers to inquiries but it is not strong enough. In consultation with members of the crossbench and the Opposition, the Christian Democratic Party has drafted an amendment about inquiries. The Minister’s advisers have suggested that my amendment is not necessary because the Local Government Act contains references to seeking the views of the community. Clause 263 (3) (d) provides that the Boundaries Commission is required to have regard to the attitude of the resident and ratepayers of the areas concerned. Clause 265 states:

Boundaries Commission may conduct survey or poll:

(1) To assist it in determining the attitude of the residents and ratepayers of an area or areas for the purposes of section 263 (3) (d), the Boundaries Commission may conduct (in such manner as it thinks appropriate) an opinion survey or poll of the residents and ratepayers.

(2) The residents and ratepayers of the area or areas concerned may participate in any such opinion survey or poll but are not required to do so.

That means it is not a compulsory survey whereby people would be fined, as they are for not voting, or at least not having their names crossed off, at a State or Federal election. The bill further states:

(3) The Boundaries Commission may request the Electoral Commissioner, a council or any other person or organisation to conduct any such opinion survey or poll.

My amendment does not introduce a novel concept; it makes a couple of important changes in emphasis. It provides that the Boundaries Commission or the director-general must - and I emphasise the word "must" - at no cost to the councils of two or more areas considering amalgamation, seek the views of the electors of each area by means of advertised public meetings, invitations for public submissions and postal surveys or opinion polls in which reply-paid questionnaires are distributed to all electors. That is straightforward.

Page 1869

There will be no requirement for a referendum, but the amendment will allow for a formal poll. If the Boundaries Commission feels it is an important matter it will be able to conduct a formal poll, which is really a form of referendum. That will not be made compulsory by my amendment; it will be an option that the Boundaries Commission or the director-general will have available.

To that extent the amendment will not make a dramatic change. It will simply specify the sorts of things that should be done by the Boundaries Commission or the director-general. That takes up the point made by the Hon. I. Cohen. Many of these bills were drafted years ago and there has been a real change of climate - not only in Australia but right around the world. It is happening at the moment in Kosovo. It happened in Eastern Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall. It happened in the Soviet Union - now Russia - and in Czechoslovakia and Poland.

People are demanding a say in their futures. It has become a worldwide phenomenon. Previous governments - both Labor and Liberal - have not had to comprehend that. I suppose it has always been the heartbeat of human beings, but now it is a visible cry that our voices be heard at all levels of government - local, State and Federal. That will affect the way governments operate.

In the past, governments have acted like Big Brother: we know what is best for the people, we are only doing this because we know what is best for you, and we will make you do it. That attitude has to change. The debate we are having tonight is just a small step forward in reflecting the will of the people. People will have to be consulted. People have said to me that the Minister has said this and others have said that. They were going to vote against the amalgamations. Maybe that is the will of the people, and they will not amalgamate.

Instead of councils insisting on ramming things through, they should take them to the people and let the people vote on whether they wish to re-elect their councillors. Perhaps some councils are discussing amalgamation when that does not fully reflect the views of the ratepayers. Again, councils may be acting like Big Brother, saying they know what is best for the council area but they are not prepared to test the will of the people.

I am in two minds about this bill. I almost feel that we should force all councils to go to the election in September. That would lead to a more democratic outcome. I am not suggesting that there is a conspiracy but the Government may not realise that some councils apply pressure to avoid facing the voters. That is my interpretation.

One hears it said that if we proceed with this amendment it will be so serious, so draconian, that the Government will withdraw the bill. When one thinks about it, we cannot lose. If the Government pulls the bill the elections will be held; if we go ahead with this amendment we will at least get an expression of the views of the people. The Government is in a bind. I foreshadow that amendment and I will move it in Committee.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [8.53 p.m.]: I want to speak only briefly on the Local Government Amendment (Amalgamations and Boundary Changes) Bill. It is perfectly clear that in the lead-up to the election, the Opposition had a policy that was clear and understood by the community. We said we would support voluntary amalgamations in the belief that 177 councils may be more than is necessary across New South Wales or that some communities felt they would benefit from amalgamating with a neighbouring council.

There are many small councils, especially in country areas of New South Wales. Having said that, we would always have acted in the interests of local communities so that local communities would have a say. As I understood it, the Government also went to the election with a policy of voluntary amalgamations.

[Interruption]

The Labor Government has sacked more councils than we ever did. The Opposition has been concerned for some time about the Government’s true motives with this bill. When the bill was tabled in the other place and the shadow minister read it, he was quite certain it was not concerned merely with voluntary amalgamations, with allowing councils an opportunity to amalgamate, or allowing the community to have a view, but with forced amalgamations.

In debate in the other place and in meetings with advisers the Opposition and the shadow minister made it clear at all times that the bill would allow forced amalgamations. It gives more of a role to the Minister than anything to do with voluntary amalgamations. Of course, the Minister has denied that - in Parliament and in the community. Many groups have been saying that it is just some figment of the Opposition’s imagination.

When I heard on ABC radio this morning that the Minister was quoted as saying that the bill
Page 1870
contained a drafting error, I did not accept it. That was the weakest, most wishy-washy excuse I have heard for a long time. I have thought about it all day and I realise what the definition of a drafting error is. It is when the Opposition and the crossbenchers have the numbers.

The Hon. Dr P. Wong: They found out about it.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: Yes, they found out about it. The object of the bill is quite clear. Paragraph (a) of the overview of bill states that the object is:

to facilitate the amalgamation of local government areas and the alteration of local government area boundaries . . .

On the next page of the bill honourable members will see:

Proposed Division 2A enables the Governor to make a proclamation that amalgamates two or more local government areas . . .

It says a little later:

The effect of an amalgamation proclamation will be to dissolve two or more former areas and to constitute one or more new areas.

The bill makes it clear how this will be achieved. It states:

A proposal for amalgamation or boundary alteration may be made by the Minister, by one or more councils or by an appropriate minimum number of electors . . .

There are three triggers, and one is the Minister. I have been looking through the various schedules to the bill to see which one was the Government’s drafting error. After all, the Government has heard the shadow minister say on numerous occasions that the bill was all about forced amalgamations, and the Government has denied it. Which provision contains the drafting error? Could it be proposed subsection 218F (4)? The bill states:

The Minister may recommend to the Governor that the proposal be implemented:

(a) with such modifications as arise out of:

(i) the Boundary Commission’s report, or

(ii) the Director-General’s report . . .

(b) with such other modifications as the Minister determines . . .

Surely that provision is the crux of the matter. It is clear that the Minister could recommend changes. The Boundaries Commission or the director-general could examine and then, with various modifications, the Minister could determine it. This is about the stroke of a pen from the Governor on the advice of the Minister, with the director-general of his department acting in cahoots. This is forced amalgamation by whatever name one wants to dress it up.

The Government and the Opposition are proposing to accept some amendments from the crossbenchers. Opposition members have had to suffer the nonsense of groups in the community suggesting that forced amalgamation was a figment of our imagination. The Minister has denied to our face what we were saying. Nevertheless, despite the excuse I heard on the radio this morning that this is some sort of drafting error, the reality is the Government has always had another agenda. All of us in this House agree with voluntary amalgamations, but the Government has an agenda on forced amalgamations and it has been found out.

This House will not allow that to occur because we believe, above everything else, that the community has a right to have a say about these issues. It is appropriate that many councils consider the amalgamation issue, but that must be done in concert with local communities. Local communities must have a voice. We have said so often that local government is that tier of government closest to the people. We cannot ignore the people; indeed, we must be prepared to listen to their will. The Opposition will certainly examine amendments that give effect to the community’s role in decisions. We will certainly act to ensure there will be no suggestion of forced amalgamations.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [9.00 p.m.]: The Greens oppose this bill as it will inflict massive damage on the development of local government. The stated intent of the bill is to streamline procedures for amalgamations of councils in order to improve efficiency and quality of service. In this line of thinking the rights of communities to be represented by individuals who respond to their needs and who act in the best interests run a poor second to the desire to cut costs. While the Greens oppose wasteful practices and seek to improve the quality of services, we do not believe that increasing the size of councils will always achieve that.

The ingredients of successful local government stretch well beyond size. Community empowerment is a key ingredient. Outcomes that respect the rights of all participants will occur only when local communities have the ability to directly enter into the decision-making process. This bill does nothing
Page 1871
to ensure that when residents have won such rights there is not a regression to a more autocratic style. The so-called voluntary amalgamation proposals are at the whim of the elected councils, without adequate consultation with the people. Imagine if Premiers Beattie and Carr stated that they intended to merge their two States without recourse to a plebiscite, and that State elections were to be postponed for more than a year to allow this to happen. Obviously there would be an outcry; there should be an outcry now.

Even if we accept at face value the stated motivation for bringing this bill before the House, the proposition is fatally flawed. The Greens suspect that there is a much more sinister set of motives behind this bill. As with so much that goes down in New South Wales politics, outcomes represent a web of convenience for those on the inside more than any thoughtful consideration for public interest. For example, we can easily see why so many mayors have jumped on Harry Woods’ amalgamation cart. It is a sad indictment of some of them to say that they have sold out their voters for tickets to the official box at the Olympics. Other mayors, particularly those of inner Sydney, seek to put together councils when they can more easily get the numbers.

Make no mistake, once some of these individuals have gained undisputed control, they will make a beeline for the two councillors per ward rort. Under the provisions of the Local Government Act voting is then on a preferential basis, doing away with the inconvenience of proportional representation. While producing councils that would be more amenable to the needs of big developers, this would be a catastrophe for the community, for the local environment and for the reputation of local government. At least this partly explains the Government’s haste in bringing this bill before the House.

It is not a matter of urgency. On the contrary, some large-scale changes should be carefully thought out, exposed to the discipline of public scrutiny and debate, and decided on a timetable that is long enough to involve the entire community. It would appear far more sensible to conduct the process of boundary adjustment over a four-year cycle, culminating in new elections in September 2003. But this would not satisfy the Labor insiders seeking to rort the system for their own purposes.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: What outrageous slander!

Ms LEE RHIANNON: There will be more because there are so many problems. The Hon. I. M. Macdonald knows that rorts go on in the councils. This bill is the latest attempt by Labor to manipulate the electorate. Local government is crucial to the democratic process. It is at this level of government that Independents and minor parties have the strongest voice. Labor recognises this and knows that for its long-term political survival it needs to limit the opportunities for non-major party candidates to gain a public platform. What better place to do this than to structure local councils in ways that favour major parties.

This is the Labor strategy that is driving Woods’ and the Minister’s intense lobbying to stop referendums being held in areas where councils want to amalgamate. Labor's offer of inquiries is an attempt to win support away from holding referendums. We appeal to crossbenchers to carefully consider why Labor refuses to agree to referendums. It knows that if a referendum is held in many areas its preferred option on amalgamation will not succeed. It is important also to recognise that constitutional referendums are integral to the organisation of councils.

If a local council wants to abolish wards, create new wards, change the method of electing the mayor or change the number of councillors, a referendum must be held. Referendums are part of the landscape of local councils and are nothing new. Under the Labor bill when an amalgamation occurs councils will be dissolved and reconstituted. Therefore, it is essential that a referendum take place. Anything less means that the people are locked out of having any input and the make-up of the final council will be determined by major party powerbrokers.

Local government has much to offer: its size and predominance of proportional representation are great assets in creating a more responsive and democratic environment. The Greens believe that, freed from the yoke of arbitrary and self-serving State government intervention, much could be achieved in empowering communities and individuals and involving them in a meaningful way in the decision-making process.

Quality outcomes that safeguard the natural and built environment, protect heritage, enhance the community’s self-awareness and provide increasingly valuable human services at a local level are within easy reach. It would take only some imagination and a degree of genuine power sharing by this Parliament. Local government, council employees and the community deserve better than this bill would deliver. The Greens oppose the bill.

Page 1872

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [9.07 p.m.]: Before commencing my speech I should like to put some questions to the Minister. As Minister Harry Woods expressed a desire for the amalgamation of some shire councils if possible before the local government elections in September, will he explain what criteria he used to justify such amalgamations? Has his department carried out a cost-benefit analysis to measure the possible administrative savings against the loss to the economy in small towns if shire council offices are closed? Is the Minister aware that many local councils already use contractors to carry out necessary public works rather than to invest substantial sums of money on earthmoving and road-building equipment?

Is the Minister further aware that the distance between many small towns will mean that country people will have to travel considerable distances if council offices are located at another centre? Will the Road and Traffic Authority [RTA] functions now available through local government offices remain available if shire council offices are closed? How will the range of community services currently administered by local and State government be affected? Can the Minister give an assurance that local libraries will not be closed or their hours curtailed to the detriment of students? There is some doubt that bigger is necessarily better. This has been shown in many cases where amalgamation has led to bigger councils but quality of services does not improve.

Manning Clark, the eminent historian, divided Australians into three basic groups: convicts, overseers and squatters. The convicts were the poor old people at the bottom of the tree. The squatters were given large tracts of land for no apparent reason other than the fact that they were British and had good breeding. Squatters have their analogy today in the multinational corporations and large lobby groups. The overseers were bullies to the convicts and tugged their forelocks to the squatters. Australian governments generally fall into the overseer category: they do not have much concept of letting the convicts have any say and they are deferential to people with power and money. Nothing much has changed.

Australia needs to have a serious discussion about what sort of government it wants and whether it needs three tiers of government. Unfortunately, such a discussion was avoided in the terms of reference of the Constitutional Convention. In an almost arrogant way the agenda was stolen from the Australian people. There could and should have been a more broad-ranging discussion about the type of Australia we want. Here again, the same thing is happening. A major change is being made to local government but the people are not involved in the process.

I have received a great deal of correspondence about this matter. One constituent from the south of Sydney said that six of the 12 councillors in his council area were elected to office with less than 8 per cent of the vote in their respective wards. There needs to be an investigation of the voting patterns so that the voting numbers correspond with the outcome. This is a concept almost unknown to the Government and, dare I say, to the Opposition. The two major parties want to get 75 per cent of the vote and have 95 per cent of the seats, which is a totally undemocratic concept. That means the lower House becomes a rubber stamp for whichever major party is elected to office. The concept of diversity in government seems to be beyond the comprehension of the major parties, particularly the one in power in New South Wales at the moment.

I do not want to take an undue amount of time because I know we are short of time tonight. I cannot help but wonder in a cynical way if this delay in elections is a sweetener to the councillors who might favour amalgamation. If they agree to amalgamation the sweetener is that they do not have to face elections for another year, which smacks of an overseer deal. The councillors, or the overseers, are given assistance and the convicts do not get a say.

There are a number of areas where local government becomes entangled in other issues. In Albury, where the council does not favour a bypass of the city, the bypass issue has become entangled with the issue of council amalgamations and the possibility of delaying the elections. In the Concord and Drummoyne areas, the head of the Local Government and Shires Associations supports an amalgamation. Such an amalgamation would favour his council, thus creating a conflict of interest in regard to his position as head of the Local Government and Shires Associations.

It was pointed out to me in correspondence, and was alluded to by the Hon. I. Cohen, that although the Richmond River shire councillors want to amalgamate with Casino Council - which is in the area of the Minister - not one of them had a pro-amalgamation platform at the last election. The results of a Morgan Gallup poll conducted in the Richmond River shire show that 61 per cent of the people were opposed to amalgamation, 29 per cent were in favour and 10 per cent were undecided. Clearly, the people do not want an amalgamation of
Page 1873
the council, even though many people say it is too small to survive. That fact may be unfortunate for people who want amalgamations.

I have been told by people who are pro-amalgamation, and whose opinion I respect, that there should not be a referendum on the matter because the people will not vote for amalgamation. In other words, because the people do not know what is good for them, others will decide for them. We have a tradition in Australia of not asking the people. Every now and again the major parties have to face an election.

They do not like it very much but they have to put up with it because that is the system. But one has the feeling that what the people think does not matter to the major parties. The results of the poll in Richmond River suggest that is so. The major parties say if the people do not want amalgamation, never mind; the councillors do, and that is good enough.

In a democracy we should take the people into our confidence. We should discuss the issues with them and follow their lead, not keep them in the dark and fiddle things through. Under proposed section 218F the implementation of the proposal is effectively at ministerial discretion and relies on the Minister’s opinion as to whether or not it is a new proposal. It states that the Minister may recommend that the proposal be implemented even if he or she is of the opinion that the modifications constitute a new proposal. Whose opinion? The Minister’s opinion. That is a good example of subjective judgment if ever there was one: even though everyone else may be of the opinion that it is a new proposal, that might not be the Minister’s opinion.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: It is a drafting error.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: This is an amendment, so it is obviously to fix a drafting error. The major parties must face the fact that people are not ready for council amalgamations and more discussion should take place about the type of government we want in Australia. The percentage of people who do not vote for a major party is increasing, which creates diversity in government. From that diversity we will get a richer society and a better government. It is time that the Government came to terms with that and recognised it in this bill. The Democrats will vote for proposals that favour involvement by the people in their destiny.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [9.16 p.m.]: There is no doubt that local government is an important form and level of government. In fact, it is probably the form of government closest to the people. It is not the wealthiest or most powerful form of government, but, because of its closeness to the people, those who tamper with it do so at their own peril. Since this bill was proposed I have received faxes, emails, letters and telephone calls, as I am sure many honourable members have, from people expressing their points of view. It is fair to say that most viewpoints have been that they do not like the idea of forced amalgamations.

What has emerged from this hotchpotch of arguments, faxes and emails is that the big question seems to be: Should we have a referendum or a plebiscite or some form of community consultation before local government areas are amalgamated? No-one is more concerned than I am to ensure that people are consulted when something happens that is going to change their lives. But I would simply like to inject into this debate a very simple question. With regard to the need for referendums and plebiscites and letting the communities in two local government areas decide whether or not they will amalgamate, I ask the simple question: Do they care? I suggest that the answer would be probably not.

Let me quantify that. In the days when local government voting was not compulsory the average turn-out for local government elections was 30 per cent to 40 per cent. I am not saying that is how it should be; I am saying that is how it was and, to a large degree, that is how it is today. If the average citizen was asked to name his local councillor he would not be able to do that. I am not saying that is how it ought to be; I am saying that is how it is, whether we like it or not. Strangely enough, people are not sufficiently interested in local government because although it is the form of government closest to them, they do not hear very much from it.

Local government deals with the things that affect people’s everyday lives - kerbing, guttering, garbage collections. But for some reason people are not interested. A great deal has been made of forced amalgamations. I experienced it in 1949. The Hon. D. J. Gay has assured me that it is not so, but the Minister has assured me it is. I do not know who is right. I was in an area of southern New South Wales in 1949 when two councils were forcibly amalgamated because one had become unviable.

I have sought from the Minister’s office a round-up of the number of forced amalgamations there have been. The Minister’s office was unable to provide that information. But his office did tell me that in the round of amalgamations in 1981, 14
Page 1874
councils were created from 33. We do not know how many of them were forced, but the suggestion is very few. We should find out how often the forced amalgamation provision is used before we get too upset about it. Let us find out what it is about.

Much has been said about the poll that was taken in Richmond River shire because of the proposed amalgamation of Richmond River and Casino councils. I am only a new politician but I am a long-time journalist, and good journalists always check their sources. So I did that. I rang Richmond River Shire Council and said, "We have been told that 61 per cent of people in your area oppose amalgamation. Can you please send me a copy of the poll?" I seek leave to table a copy of the poll documents for the edification of honourable members who might like to read them.

Leave granted.

The Roy Morgan research poll states:

Almost two out of every three people in the Richmond River Shire aged 18 years or over oppose the proposed amalgamation of the Richmond River Shire and Casino Shire Councils (61%). Only 29% of residents favour the proposal, whilst a further 10% are undecided.

The Hon. I. Cohen and the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans referred to that poll in their contributions to the debate. Those figures are rubbish. There is no way that 61 per cent of the population in Richmond River shire can be said to oppose amalgamation. Let me give honourable members the figures. In terms of the response rate the Roy Morgan poll document states:

The opinion poll comprised of 6,346 mail out questionnaires sent to all people aged 18 or over in the Richmond River Shire.

Almost one in two questionnaires (44%) were completed correctly and returned.

The document shows that 52 per cent did not respond. Here we go with this lack of interest again. I am fairly lousy at mathematics but Roy Morgan’s figures show that 44 per cent of the 6,346 residents who received the questionnaire responded. In my book that makes 2,792 residents, 61 per cent of whom are opposed to amalgamation. That boils down to 26 per cent of the total number of people surveyed in that shire.

Many people in the area may want to amalgamate, and many people may not want to amalgamate - but they did not take part in the poll. Therefore, as a referendum in the normal sense requires at least a 50 per cent vote, what purpose would a referendum serve in an area in which people are not sufficiently interested to take part in the poll, as they used to be not sufficiently interested to vote in local government elections? Let us take it one step further. I had the staff in my office speak to the General Manager of Casino Council, Mr Ross Schipp. He said Casino Council had conducted a poll in the local newspaper. Incidentally, Richmond River shire is a larger area but the populations of the Casino and Richmond River shires are roughly similar.

Casino Council’s newspaper poll had a 10 per cent response rate. Mr Schipp said that it was not a bad response rate, considering the poll was voluntary and considering people’s interest in local government. Let me give the rest of the figures: 62.58 per cent voted for amalgamation, 26.3 per cent voted for resource sharing and fewer than 10 per cent voted for the status quo. Those figures are as meaningless as the figures in the Morgan poll because they do not represent any reasonable proportion of the electors in the area.

I have read the amendments proposed by the Hon. D. J. Gay and the amendment proposed by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. I simply ask whether they will serve any purpose. Will they simply hold up the amalgamation process when both councils want to amalgamate? Both Richmond River Shire Council and Casino Council applied for amalgamation in August last year. It is not a new proposal. Will plebiscites, referendums or other kinds of polls make any difference if fewer than 50 per cent of the population vote? If we amend the Act to include the requirement for a referendum, all we will probably do is put a brick wall in the face of referendums which councils wanted.

I have enormous respect for the Hon. I. Cohen’s interest in local government. He said that councils amalgamate off their own bat. Councils are supposed to represent the opinion of electors. I do not know whether these councils have strayed from what their electors want. However, there is no source of information other than the council if not more than 44 per cent of those who received the mail-out bothered to respond to it. We may simply be talking about the end of the rainbow which we will never reach. I am not saying that I would necessarily be appalled if this were introduced, but I am saying that it would not prove anything.

If we cannot get more than 26 per cent - and that is what it amounts to - of the electors in Richmond River shire to say that they are opposed to amalgamation, we are entitled to assume that the other 74 per cent are not opposed to amalgamation.
Page 1875
They may not be in favour of it but they are not opposed to it. As far as I am concerned referendums, plebiscites and polls are simply a lot of unamalgamated nonsense.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG [9.26 p.m.]: I shall answer two of the points made by the Hon. J. S. Tingle. The honourable member suggested that people are not interested in polls or plebiscites. If that is the case, perhaps there should not be compulsory voting in Federal and State elections. For example, only 60 per cent, 50 per cent or even 40 per cent of the population vote in elections in America and Indonesia. Elections are part of the democratic process.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Why have a vote?

The Hon. Dr P. WONG: I agree. So the Hon. J. S. Tingle’s first point is a fallacy. Democracy is about asking people to give their opinion. The honourable member’s second point was even worse. According to him, the Morgan poll showed that a tiny 26 per cent supported amalgamation. That is 61 per cent of 2,921. I am a doctor and I believe in statistics. If that is a translation it is highly statistically significant. If honourable members are in doubt they should ask the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans, who is the expert. If those figures are applied to medical practice they are virtually absolute. There would be no fallacy. If the statistics are translated they are highly significant. If honourable members believe in science, as I believe they do, that is what it is all about. First, it is a matter of democracy and, second, it is a scientific fact.

The Hon. J. S. Tingle: You have to get 50 per cent in a referendum.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG: Yes. If it is compulsory it will be 100 per cent. That would translate into exactly what it is - 61 per cent. I am sure the Hon. J. S. Tingle believes that. I support the principle of the Local Government Amendment (Amalgamations and Boundary Changes) Bill, which is the voluntary amalgamation of councils. The concept of council amalgamations has merit in some cases. Some councils want to amalgamate because they are too small, and some councils want to amalgamate for other reasons. Furthermore, they believe that they can be more efficient. Whatever the reason, citizens have a right to express their view. A number of my concerns about the bill arise from an apparent restriction to those same democratic rights and freedoms.

Some aspects of the bill seek to deny the people of New South Wales the right to have a say about the future of their local councils. The bill will create a situation in which councils can amalgamate without prior consultation with their community. Provisions for public inquiries before dissolutions of council areas occur already exist in the old Act but they have not been carried over into this bill. That is perhaps because of the presumption that amalgamations will be voluntary and that public inquiries would not be necessary. Such a presumption is dangerous to the democratic process.

The process created in the bill will vastly limit public consultation, even when amalgamations are disputed by one of the councils involved. Under the current provisions the only public consultation that is required to be conducted is by the Boundaries Commission, which is required to consider the attitude of residents and ratepayers in the areas concerned. It is possible that there will be no comprehensive public consultations at all because a public inquiry by the Boundaries Commission can be conducted only with the approval of the Minister. However, that process of consultation is further limited by the bill because the Minister now has increased powers and discretion.

Under the bill the Minister can implement a proposal for amalgamation, even when it is not supported by one or more of the councils affected, if he is of the opinion that the modifications constitute a new proposal. Therefore the Minister may not only disregard recommendations by the Boundaries Commission or the director-general, but he may enforce changes that may be very different from original proposals for amalgamation.

The democratic process is severely limited by these provisions. An analysis of the operation of the bill highlights the ability of the Minister to override the suggested proposal by the councils involved to avoid a public inquiry and to ignore proposals by the Boundaries Commission. What is the purpose of due process if ultimately it can be circumvented by the Minister? The effect of this provision might be that the Minister may force amalgamations. In his second reading speech and in subsequent consultations with members on the crossbenches the Minister denied that the bill would have this effect, but it is a power that is currently contained in the bill and must be addressed.

I intended to move an amendment in Committee to remedy that aspect of the bill.
Page 1876
However, I understand that the same amendment will be moved by the Government following my consultations with the Minister’s office. I am pleased that the Minister is nevertheless listening to some of the concerns in relation to the bill and is attempting to remedy them. The effect of the amendment will be to bring the powers of the Minister into line with the powers the Minister has in relation to boundary changes under the Local Government Act 1993, which is currently in force. In addition to that amendment, I would also support any amendments that will allow a comprehensive democratic process, more public consultation and insight into the issues relating to council amalgamations.

Any amalgamations will have fundamental and long-term effects upon the operation, direction and representation within the council. It is a fundamental right of citizens and residents of local government areas to at least be provided with an opportunity to voice their opinions and make submissions. It is unfortunate that governments are often averse to the idea of a referendum when making structural reforms. A referendum is an opportunity for citizens to take part in the organisation and direction of government. Constitutional referendums are already required if a local council wants to abolish boards, create new wards, change the number of councillors, or change the method of electing mayors and councils. Those provisions exist in the current Local Government Act, but again they have not been carried into the amending bill.

I understand the reason for the omission of the referendum requirement is that the amalgamation of councils will supposedly be voluntary. However, as I said earlier, the structures created in the bill go far beyond voluntary amalgamations. The bill does not specify methods of amalgamation when all councils consent, and it creates provisions for circumstances in which proposals are not supported by all sides. I understand that the Government will move amendments in Committee to allow for a comprehensive public inquiry to be held by the Boundaries Commission. I commend the Government for consulting with crossbenchers and addressing some of our concerns. I understand that other amendments will be moved that will go further towards allowing full consultation at the level of the Boundaries Commission and the director-general.

The Government may be concerned that these amendments may make the functions of the respective public bodies and the Minister too prescriptive and even unworkable. I do not agree with such reasoning. This is an excellent opportunity to amend the Local Government Act and establish a democratic procedure for changes at local government level, and it should be acted upon. For an issue of such magnitude as the amalgamation of councils, which by its very nature serves to change the entire dynamics of local government, it is exceedingly important that the people have a direct say in that decision. I also note that although I support the principle of amalgamation of some councils, that may not always be the best approach when reforming local government.

The "bigger is better" theory, combined with such notions as economies of scale, are not always reflected in practice. My office has conducted a quick survey of local councils of various sizes. The survey highlighted that one particularly big council had significantly higher rates than others. The amalgamation can also serve to reduce employment opportunities within the council. I understand that the Government has given an undertaking not to implement forced redundancies because of the amalgamation process. Furthermore, in some cases big councils can serve to erode the personalised service that a smaller, more dynamic council can provide. An amalgamated council means that the ratio of ratepayers to councillors will be proportionally larger.

Such a broad constituency will make it more difficult for the council to have a close relationship with the people. One of the greatest strengths of a local council is its grassroots nature, and that is something we should foster. When one considers how much local councils are paid, one sees that it is a relatively cost-effective representative system. One must also take into account that a larger amalgamated council will ensure that the threshold for election as a local councillor will rise. The effect of that may make it significantly more difficult for independent and other non-major party candidates to be elected.

That could lead to local councils being dominated by the major parties and thus becoming instruments for the agenda of major parties. Thus it is important that the "bigger is better" theory be regarded in the context of "too big is not too good". However, once again I note my support of amalgamation where it is needed, particularly with small councils. The bill is lightweight when it comes to due process. In many respects it is more about keeping up appearances than actually ensuring open and transparent government. It is possible that the bill might do more damage than good unless due process and public importance are enshrined in it.

I must also express my deepest concern that during the recent consultations with the Minister and his advisers some of the claimed facts were not
Page 1877
facts. I have been misled on many occasions. In the beginning the adviser of the Minister denied that the bill contained draconian clauses. Then the adviser accepted it. He wanted to bargain for my support for the amendments. I compare that to Minister Obeid, who is a professional politician. I regret that that happened and I do not want it to happen again. One of my deepest regrets - and I say this in all sincerity - is that such an undemocratic and unfair bill could be introduced in this House by a Labor Party Government, which, in the past, was supposed to represent the views of the common people.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [9.39 p.m.]: I wonder whether the Hon. J. S. Tingle believes that when the Morgan people conduct an opinion poll prior to a Federal or State election 100 per cent of voters are polled. He does not seem to be aware that when a poll is conducted only about 2000, 3,000 or 4,000 people are polled, but extremely accurate results are produced. A 44 per cent poll of the Richmond River people is actually a very high proportion of people voting on a non-compulsory poll.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: There would be less than a 1 per cent variance.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: There would probably be less than a 1 per cent variance, as the Hon. D. J. Gay said. That is a very high number of people. I used to be in the mail order business and if we got a 1 per cent response we thought we were doing well. To get a 44 per cent response shows a very high level of concern within the community. In fact, it turns out that the poll also showed that 96 per cent of people in the Richmond River shire were aware of the amalgamation, which again is a very high percentage of people.

Twenty-eight per cent felt that the existing arrangement was working well and that there was no need for change, and 24 per cent did not want to take on Casino shire’s financial problems. The people of Casino seem to have a financial reason to amalgamate and will be loading up the people of the Richmond River shire with their financial problems, according to this poll. Also, 20 per cent felt that their rates would increase and 15 per cent felt that the services and funding would be cut should the proposal go ahead.

The bill effectively removes residents from the voluntary amalgamation equation. It removes from the existing Act sections 216 and 217, which provide for a period of public consultation. Residents will no longer be given 28 days notice of any proposal to amalgamate, nor will they be able to make representations to, and have those representations considered by, the Minister. As long as the majority of councils vote in favour of a proposed amalgamation, there is no guaranteed process of public consultation at all within the bill, even if a minority of councillors and a great majority of the community vociferously oppose it. This is a shocking state of affairs when there is a good chance that many of the amalgamations will be against the wishes of the residents.

There is also opposition building up among ratepayers in Maclean to two proposed amalgamations. They ask why elections due in September should be postponed 12 months and why a referendum cannot be organised with the election so ratepayers have the chance to express their opinion on whether or not they want to join with another shire before they are faced with a fait accompli. They ask for the economic models that show they will be better off financially if they restructure their municipal boundaries and for figures projecting their rates for the next five years if they do amalgamate, as well as what other costs and expenditures may be involved. These questions need answering.

Therefore, there should be plebiscites or referenda held before any mergers can occur. Mayors and councillors should have to put the case for an amalgamation before the people who elected them, and any decision made by the people in regard to that amalgamation should be binding. We cannot afford to let mayors, councillors or even the Minister ignore the wishes of the community. New section 218 (2) of the bill, which gives the Minister power to ignore and modify council proposals as well as the recommendations of the Boundaries Commission and the director-general, must therefore also be amended, as it may well be. The Government, the Greens and the Opposition will move amendments in Committee and all honourable member’s should consider those amendments very carefully indeed.

As the Total Environment Centre quite rightly points out in its briefing note to members of Parliament on 25 June, "There are very few chances to reform Local Government Areas and this opportunity should be grasped to do the job properly". The question we have to ask ourselves is whether we can trust the people and do we actually believe in democracy? It would appear that the Government, or this Minister, does not believe that we can trust the people. If the people believe that the amalgamation is in their interests, they will vote for an amalgamation. If not, they will vote against it. If the arguments put to them are sound, they will vote for it. We should let the people decide.

Page 1878

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [9.43 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions, which have been varied and wide and have offered good comment. The Government’s Local Government Amendment (Amalgamations and Boundary Changes) Bill seeks to assist those councils wishing to pursue voluntary amalgamation. The reason why voluntary amalgamation is attractive to councils is that it enables them to provide a better quality of service and infrastructure to their community. We have 177 councils in New South Wales ranging in size. Some, not all, are struggling to keep their heads above water. Approximately 40 per cent of councils are spending more than 20¢ in the dollar on administration when the norm is 10¢.

The main tenet of this bill is to defer specific elections when two or more councils resolve to pursue voluntary amalgamations. This makes perfect sense. It is not fair that ratepayers should go to the polls in September only to find they have to vote again some months down the track if a voluntary amalgamation proposal is approved. The Opposition supported this notion during debate on this bill in the other House. This is what the member for Albury said:

There could be good reasons for councils wanting to defer their elections. If they are not able to defer their elections it could result in ratepayers paying unnecessary expenses.

We agree. Now there are amendments on this table from both the Greens and the Opposition to require a referendum before a voluntary amalgamation proceeds. It is the Government’s intention to shelve this bill if those amendments proceed.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Is that a threat?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: It is a statement. We are putting our cards on the table. There is nothing wrong with that. Don’t waste our time, don’t waste your time, and don’t waste the public’s money in keeping this House sitting.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: You are going to pull this bill if you don’t get everything you want. Despite the fact that you are going to get the deferral you want, you are going to pull the bill. You will suffer for that. It is a stupid thing to do.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: We are making a statement that if the House desires to go down a certain path, that is fine. A referendum is costly, time consuming and unnecessary. A council is the elected body of a community. The Boundaries Commission is required to fully consider the attitudes of ratepayers and residents to such a proposal. These amendments are simply designed to frustrate this process. They will complicate rather than streamline amalgamations. We will make sure that the 20 or so councils which have already formally informed us that they wish to pursue voluntary amalgamations know that it is the Opposition which scuttled this process and defeated their chances to pursue a voluntary outcome.

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: And the crossbenchers.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: We do not worry about 1 per centers and 1.5 per centers. You did not even get a quota so don’t give me that. The intent of this bill is to allow the Government to postpone elections for a period of up to 12 months where two or more councils want to pursue a proposal for an amalgamation. If that occurs, the Minister will refer that proposal to the Boundaries Commission. The Boundaries Commission must give regard to a variety of issues, including community interest, financial impact, geographic concerns and the attitude of residents and ratepayers.

The process used by the Boundaries Commission in conducting the examination will need information to be obtained so that an objective view may be formed on relevant matters to be considered. For example, the attitude of residents and ratepayers in affected areas is a matter to be considered. Information on this issue can be obtained by the use of surveys, opinion polls or formal polls conducted by the Boundaries Commission. Where there is strong community feeling a poll or survey should be considered positively. The situation for each proposal will be unique to each and the factors will need to be carefully examined.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: That is my amendment.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: That is in the Act. It will be incumbent on the Boundaries Commission in assessing the factors to ensure that relevant information is obtained and each source of information will be needed to seek out the circumstances of councils affected by a proposal so that the requirements of the legislation can be properly and objectively assessed. A survey of residents can be conducted if the commission deems it necessary to be satisfied as to the views of the community as well as those of the council. The Boundaries Commission will then report with recommendations on a voluntary amalgamation. Only if the councils agree will the Minister follow the recommendations.

Page 1879

I make it clear that there will be no forced amalgamations. There seems to be a misconception by the Opposition and others that this bill provides for forced amalgamations by stealth. The current Act already allows for forced amalgamations, as did the 1919 Act. By virtue of the 1919 Act, the Minister currently has within his powers the ability to force amalgamations. The Government does not need to change any legislation to force amalgamations.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: He needs a good political minder who can read legislation.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: In response to the interjection by the Hon. D. J. Gay, let me assure him that Labor has better political advisers than does the National Party. That is why Labor is in government. The honourable member will be occupying the opposition benches for a long time. I hope his properties are within the zone I reserved at Crookwell. Perhaps he will find some gold, get some royalties and find something better to do. Obviously, he does not have good advice.

The Government supports voluntary amalgamations and is assisting councils that want to take that path. At no stage has this Government sought to use the existing provisions to force amalgamation. Since the Minister first raised the issue of structural reform, he has been taken aback by the positive response that he has received from both metropolitan and country councils. The Minister has also received support from the Local Government Association, the Shires Association of New South Wales, the Property Council of New South Wales and the Urban Development Institute of Australia. For the benefit of those who have been talking about local government representing the first tier, I will read a media release by the property council which states:

The Property Council of Australia today slammed a State Opposition proposal that would require a referendum for councils seeking voluntary amalgamation.

NSW President Mark Davidson believes, "There is a growing recognition within many local councils of the need for structural reform to achieve improved efficiencies in administration and service delivery to their local communities.

That’s why the Property Council has been a keen advocate of this for so long . . .

Instead of taking cheap political shots at the Government, the Opposition should congratulate them for showing leadership to those councils that want to look at amalgamations by giving them a process to follow.

I also wish to read a letter from the Local Government and Shires Associations of New South Wales, which the Hon. D. J. Gay made a gesture about, as though the current secretary, Murray Kidnie, has no relevance; as though the secretary of that association has no right to write a letter. I would like Hansard to record that the Hon. D. J. Gay suggests that Murray Kidnie, the secretary of the Local Government and Shires Associations of New South Wales, has no rights or should not have written this letter; that he had no authority.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Point of order: On a point of clarification, I actually had not stated anything. Perhaps the Minister is referring to a comment last night when the Hon. H. S. Tsang said that the President of the Shires Association wrote a letter, and I said, "No". It was not the President of the Shires Association; it was the secretary of the Shires Association. I am clarifying the record. The Minister is misleading the House about what is recorded in Hansard.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: To the point of order: If the Hon. D. J. Gay refers to Hansard, he will see that he made a gesture as to the irrelevance of the secretary. The Hon. D. J. Gay was saying that it did not matter - as though the secretary of that association did not matter, if it was he who wrote the letter - and that he would only accept the president’s letter. Let me say to the honourable member that the secretary is entitled to write the letter, and I would be surprised if he wrote that letter without the authority of the president.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. As I said yesterday, some members are taking inappropriate points of order. It would have been more appropriate for the Hon. D. J. Gay to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 70. I would have allowed him to do that.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Madam President, may I make a personal explanation?

The PRESIDENT: Order! You cannot make a personal explanation when the other member is speaking.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: The other member is not speaking.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I have -

The PRESIDENT: Order! I ask the member and the Minister to be seated while I am speaking.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: You haven’t stood. Standing Order 83, Madam President.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have asked you to sit down.

Page 1880

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Standing Order 83 - I refer you to Standing Order 83.

The PRESIDENT: If you know your standing orders, you should know that you cannot make a personal explanation while there is a question before the House. The member cannot make a personal explanation at this time. The Minister may proceed.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: Thank you, Madam President. I quote from the letter sent by the Local Government and Shires Associations of New South Wales to the Hon. H. F. Woods, and it is signed by Murray Kidnie, secretary of that association. The letter states:

The Bill appears to address the concerns expressed by the Associations in relation to the potential disruption of conducting Local Government elections while councils pursue voluntary amalgamations.

The Local Government Act itself ensures that there is a thorough process undertaken, including public consultation, once a proposal is referred to the Boundaries Commission.

I wish to cite another letter from the Local Government Association of New South Wales which was sent by the president, Peter Woods. The letter states:

It is our sincere hope that this legislation will pass without amendment . . .

On behalf of the Local Government Association I wish you well and thank you for your efforts in ensuring Councils are able to chart a course that will ensure effective Local Government. Local Government has been urging constructive reform of a pro-active nature and appreciates the manner by which we are able to constructively facilitate this.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: You can’t see the trees for the Woods.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: Quite obviously, the Hon. D. F. Moppett is not in touch with his constituency. On another issue, the Minister was clear: Any voluntary amalgamations of councils would be completed only when the rights of employees are protected. There have also been some suggestions that councils - although not all - are seeking a deferment of their elections simply to be in power in time for the Olympics. That is totally unfounded and, quite simply, it is outrageous.

I remind this Chamber that if the councils are not seriously pursuing the proposals or have abandoned them, the Minister has the power to revoke a deferment and order elections. I wish to quickly respond to suggestions that bigger councils will only favour the major parties and will shut out Independents or minor parties. This does not follow. Gosford City Council is a case in point. As one of the State’s largest councils with more than 150,000 people, six of its 10 councillors are independent.

This bill is an important piece of legislation because it gives councils the ability to decide their own destiny. The Government will be moving a number of amendments. A number of concerns have been raised throughout the bill’s preparation process. The Government will address those concerns through amendments which are proposed to be moved during the Committee stage. When an amalgamation proposal is referred by the Minister to the director-general, then the director-general’s full examination and report will be referred to the Local Government Boundaries Commission for its review before any recommendations are made to the Minister.

As the Minister previously stated, he will only act on the recommendations of the boundary commission and with the agreement of the two or more councils that are involved. He may not do so if he is of the opinion that the modifications constitute a new proposal, and he will not make that modification if the proposals constitute a new proposal.

That amendment was the result of consultation with crossbenchers. The Opposition has no right to claim credit for their good work. The Government is certainly interested in doing anything that creates a better law. The Government’s policy has remained consistent: We will not force amalgamations, and we are certainly not about increasing the Minister’s powers in that area.

The other amendments require the Boundaries Commission to hold an inquiry for the purpose of exercising its functions in relation to a proposal for the amalgamation of two or more areas that have been referred to it. Before inquiries are held by the Boundaries Commission, reasonable public notice must be given. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Schedule 1

The Hon. D. J. GAY [10.03 p.m.]: I informed the Minister’s advisers earlier that I would ask a question about schedule 1 to the bill. Item [1] of schedule 1 reads:

Page 1881

Chapter 9, Part 1, Division 1, heading

Omit ", altered".

Item [5] of schedule 1 reads:

Chapter 9, Part 1, Division 2, heading

Omit "or altered".

I ask the advisers of the Minister for Local Government, through the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, why the word "altered" has been omitted. This bill is not simply an amalgamation bill; it also deals with boundary changes. To my understanding the word "altered" should remain in the bill to enable boundary changes that are not covered by council amalgamations.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [10.05 p.m.]: The bill establishes procedures to deal with amalgamations and boundary changes. It includes processes to deal with major and minor matters and forced and voluntary amalgamations.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Did you say forced amalgamations?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: No, with major and minor matters and forced and voluntary amalgamations.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: I love your word.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: The Hon. D. J. Gay does not acknowledge that the Act gives the Minister that power. I do not know where he gets his information, but I guarantee that the Minister has the right information. The omission of the terms in items [1] and [5] removes those requirements because they are included in divisions 2A and 2B. The new divisions provide a streamlined process for voluntary amalgamations. They retain the same characteristics and continue the requirement for an inquiry where there is not an agreement.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [10.06 p.m.]: My attention having been drawn to new section 218A, I have referred to new section 218B, which I suspect provides an answer to my question. I move Opposition amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1. Insert after line 3:

[1] Section 16 What matters must be dealt with at a constitutional referendum?

Insert after section 16 (d):

(e) support a proposal for the amalgamation of the area with any other area.

I was not going to move this amendment because I believed, following extensive consultation with the Opposition, that the amendment drafted by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the crossbenchers was a better amendment. But the Opposition is not going to be threatened by anyone, least of all the Government. It is absolutely disgraceful that the Government has tried to blackmail this Chamber tonight.

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: We are not blackmailing at all. That is absolute rubbish!

The Hon. D. J. GAY: The Minister was blackmailing. His comments in his second reading speech were a disgrace. I acknowledge that they were written by someone else - by the Minister in another place or his advisers. A member cannot come into a House of Parliament in Australia and blackmail the Opposition by saying that if an amendment gets through, the Government will pull the bill. I believe that the amendment of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, which was arrived at through consultation, is a better amendment than that which has been moved by the Opposition. At the time the Opposition believed its amendment was the best available.

The Government is arrogant. The Opposition will not be bluffed by anyone. The numbers indicate that this amendment will not be agreed to. The Opposition was going to save the time of the Committee by conceding that, following consultation, other amendments were better than its amendments. Circulated Opposition amendments Nos 2 and 6 follow on from amendment No. 1. As I indicated, the numbers dictate that we will lose amendment No. 1. I will speak to the amendments that we intended to move and the reasons for moving them.

Section 16 of the Act deals with constitutional referendums. Opposition amendment No. 1 would have added to the matters able to be decided by a constitutional referendum. Currently, a constitutional referendum allows a council to do a number of things if the community approves. These include dividing the council areas into wards and increasing or decreasing councillor numbers. Under the amendment a constitutional referendum could also be used to gauge support or otherwise for the amalgamation of a council area with any other council area.

The amendment is very important in that it will guarantee members of the community a say on the possible amalgamation of their council with another council. Under the Government’s proposal
Page 1882
community input is not guaranteed. Opposition amendment No. 2 would add to section 18 of the Act, which provides more detail about constitutional referendums. The Opposition amendment would ensure that a constitutional referendum to decide on an amalgamation proposal would be held by postal ballot. This would ensure that the voters of a council area were inconvenienced as little as possible. They would have their say on amalgamations but they would not be required to front up to a polling booth; instead, they could make their feelings known via a postal ballot.

The amendment would also ensure that the constituents did not have to re-enrol as postal voters, and would allow all voters a postal vote. Finally, the amendment would provide that the Boundaries Commission should design the questions to be asked at the constitutional referendum. I dare say that the Boundaries Commission would have little trouble doing this as the task is quite small and well within its scope. Opposition amendment No. 6 relates to page 6, schedule 1 to the bill. It would remove the megalomaniac part of the bill which gives the Minister overriding powers. The Government has taken everyone for fools: The bill would enable the Minister to take on board any amalgamation proposal and refer it to the Boundaries Commission or the Director-General of the Department of Local Government, but at the end of the day the Minister would have the final say.

The bill would allow the Minister to recommend an amalgamation proposal with modifications from the Boundaries Commission, from the director-general or even from himself. Worse still, he could do that even if those modifications resulted in an entirely new proposal. That is the part that is the so-called drafting mistake. Basically, the bill allows the Minister to create his own amalgamation proposal. Every council, every ratepayer, the Boundaries Commission and the director-general may as well go home because at the end of the day the Minister would have the final word. So much for democracy! I will give the Minister the benefit of the doubt and hope that he would not use this provision. But, then again, the Government put the provision in there, which speaks volumes.

This is the compulsory amalgamation provision that the Minister says is a drafting mistake. Opposition members in the other place alerted the Minister to this so-called drafting mistake, yet he insisted that it still involved voluntary amalgamation. A former general manager in this Chamber tonight who should know better continued to insist that it still involved voluntary amalgamations. I do not know when the amalgamations become compulsory. This morning on radio station 2BL the Minister admitted that it was a drafting mistake. Perhaps that was because the Opposition and the crossbenchers had acquired the numbers and the Minister was about to introduce his own amendment to remove this drafting mistake. As I said earlier by way of interjection, perhaps it would be better if the Minister were to employ some staff who understand how to read legislation so that he does not have any more of these so-called drafting mistakes.

The Opposition’s amendment would ensure that the Minister could not recommend that any amalgamation proposal be implemented unless it had gone to a constitutional referendum and the people of each affected area had been consulted. This would restore the power to the people which the Government is trying to steal. The provisions do not relate only to amalgamations. Small boundary realignments would not require a constitutional referendum. As I indicated earlier, I believe that the amendment proposed by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is a better amendment. When the Opposition amendment is defeated the Opposition will support that amendment.

As I said earlier, I would not have moved the Opposition amendment had the Government not made the threat to the Chamber tonight. I hope the crossbenchers understand that no Opposition can bow to such a threat. We have indicated in the other House and during the second reading debate in this Chamber that we will support deferment of council elections. If the Government wants to pull this bill it is in the certain knowledge that the Opposition has already pledged support for deferment of council elections in the areas in which amalgamations are proposed. When the Government threatens the Opposition that is the sort of response it will receive. Honourable members, many on the Government benches, will understand that no Opposition can accept such a threat.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Could the Hon. D. J. Gay clarify the position with the two consequential amendments that follow Opposition amendment No. 1?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Mr Chairman, I have formally moved Opposition amendment No. 1. Amendments Nos 2 and 6, which were consequential, have not been moved. I have only spoken to them, understanding that when amendment No. 1 is lost I cannot move Nos 2 and 6.

The Hon. I. COHEN [10.17 p.m.]: I support Opposition amendments Nos 1 and 6. I think they
Page 1883
reflect Greens amendments Nos 1 and 9. The amendments ensure that the Minister may recommend to the Governor that an amalgamation proposal be implemented only if it is supported by decisions made at constitutional referendums conducted by each of the councils affected by the proposals. This is important so that communities get to decide whether their council should amalgamate. The Greens consider that the current proposal to have a Boundaries Commission inquiry should only be the first step, not the final step, in any amalgamation proposal.

The community would not be able to participate through a Boundaries Commission inquiry to the extent necessary when such an important change to a council may occur. Already, under the 1993 Act, section 16 specifies that a constitutional referendum is needed for a council to abolish wards, divide areas into wards, increase or decrease the number of councillors, or change the basis on which the mayor attains office. In the case of amalgamations, councils will be dissolved and reconstituted. Why should there not be a constitutional referendum for this?

As the shadow minister so eloquently stated last night in his speech, councils are not people, only representatives of the people. The residents and ratepayers should be able to have a say in the makeup of their new council. The currently elected councillors were not elected on an amalgamation platform. Therefore, the public should be entitled to a referendum. It is absolutely essential that there be a referendum so that the community can say whether it wants amalgamation. Amalgamations could well lead to loss of services, employment and effective representation, amongst other things.

A council may vote for amalgamation with a one-vote majority. Slightly less than 50 per cent of councillors may be totally opposed to amalgamation. The minority councillors will be unable to have a say in the amalgamation issue even though they represent slightly less than 50 per cent of the community. Therefore the community must have a say about this issue. I received some information belatedly, which I have not distributed. It refers to amendment No. 1. It sets out a series of points on holding a referendum that is fair, equitable and democratic. It states:

A constitutional referendum is to be taken on the question of whether a council should support a proposal for the amalgamation of the area of the council with any other area. The council must facilitate the development of the yes and no cases in the referendum and the council must ensure that the proponents for each case are chosen by a transparent process that ensures that the proponents for a case are genuine supporters of that case and the council must ensure that each case is funded equally.

I support the two Opposition amendments.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [10.20 p.m.]: I understand the arguments that the Leader of the Opposition has used in wanting to make it obligatory to have a full-scale, in fact a constitutional, referendum. There is no flexibility available to the Boundaries Commission. The Greens, through the Hon. I. Cohen, also support this proposition. I am concerned that this amendment makes a referendum obligatory, but that there may be a situation in which it is not necessary to have a referendum.

In the amendment that I have foreshadowed the members of the crossbenches tried to make the formal poll or referendum one of the options that the Boundaries Commission should consider. It may be necessary to have a referendum in some cases but not if there is a clear-cut opinion by the council or residents in favour of the amalgamation. While understanding the reasons why the Hon. D. J. Gay has moved the amendment, the Christian Democratic Party will not support it. We will move an amendment and we hope the Minister will accept it and that the bill is not withdrawn.

The Hon. I. COHEN [10.22 p.m.]: Concerning the referendum, I note that some members have discussed inquiries and commissions of inquiries with me. I am sure that members of this Chamber have been involved in commissions of inquiry that have been so easily turned around to meet the will of the Minister.

Recently I attended a commission of inquiry into an environmental matter that was splitting a community. There was no recording of the inquiry, no Hansard, and I found that the original positions put by the Minister as the parameters of the inquiry were virtually ignored by the commissioner. I have a great concern about other methods of working out a number of issues in the community. Either commissions of inquiry have to be vastly improved and far more impartial, or else we need a referendum to decide on these issues.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [10.23 p.m.]: My comments relate to the statistical validity of referendums. The current Federal Government was elected with 39.7 per cent of the vote. Given party solidarity, 20 per cent of the people, which is half of 39.7, would determine policy. So, that 20 per cent would have more than 50 per cent of the seats. Effectively, if we are talking democracy, 20 per cent becomes 100 per cent.

[Interruption]

As Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said by way of interjection, the kitchen cabinet may indeed fill the whole party against its will, and it may be less
Page 1884
than 20 per cent. That 20 per cent becomes 100 per cent. We would not get that with a referendum. I disagree with the Hon. J. S. Tingle. On simple statistical calculations, 61 per cent of 44 per cent, which is a significant sample return, is 26.8 per cent of the total population. The chance of that occurring, if the majority of people were not opposed to the amalgamation, would be less than one in a million on the margin of errors. One may be cynical, but the reality of the statistics cannot be changed. And that was a statistically significant sample.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [10.25 p.m.]: Under this amendment an amalgamation may be possible only if a constitutional referendum has approved it. The Government cannot support the amendment. The community will and can have its say at the ballot box when it votes for councillors to represent it. A referendum is a costly and time-consuming process that defeats the purpose of the democratic election process by which councils have been created in the first place. The role of councils is to look after the interests of their community. A council will not be making a recommendation for voluntary amalgamation unless it recognises that it is necessary to efficiently provide the quality of service that the community expects.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Breen Mr Lynn
Mr Bull Mr Oldfield
Dr Chesterfield-Evans Dr Pezzutti
Mr Cohen Ms Rhiannon
Mr Gallacher Mr Ryan
Miss Gardiner Dr Wong
Mr Gay Tellers,
Mr Harwin Mr Jobling

Mr R. S. L. Jones Mr Moppett

Ms Burnswoods Ms Saffin
Mr Corbett Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Della Bosca Mr Shaw
Mr Dyer Ms Tebbutt
Mr Egan Mr Tingle
Mr M. I. Jones Mr Tsang
Mr Macdonald
Mrs Nile Tellers,
Rev. Nile Mr Manson
Mr Obeid Mr Primrose

Pairs

Mrs Forsythe Dr Burgmann
Mr Hannaford Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Samios Mr Johnson

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIRMAN: As Opposition amendment No. 2 is consequential upon Opposition amendment No. 1, which has been negatived, I rule it out of order.

The Hon. I. COHEN [10.34 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 2:

No. 2 Page 3, schedule 1. Insert after line 9:

[3] Section 210 Division of areas into wards

Insert after section 210 (5):

(5A) In the case of an area constituted under section 218A as a consequence of the amalgamation of two or more former areas, the council must take a poll of electors on the question of whether the area should be divided into wards whether or not the Boundaries Commission has recommended that the area be divided into wards.

This amendment ensures that if the Boundaries Commission recommends a certain ward system - or no ward structure - after amalgamation, the council must poll electors on whether the council should adopt any recommendations as to the division of its area into wards. The amendment allows the community to have a say about the sort of ward structure it wants, if any, after amalgamation.

Current councillors may not have been elected on the basis of a ward structure. Independents or minority councillors may have been elected. However, under the new system a new council may be reconstituted and such people may never be elected as councillors. Using as an example the Randwick, South Sydney and Botany local government areas, if they reconstitute they might put in place a ward structure that is wholly dominated by Labor councillors. This can be done via the two councillors per ward structure in which the optional preferential voting system applies. This is the case in Botany, where they are all Labor councillors. This bill is about ensuring the best possible result for Labor, particularly in the east Sydney and south Sydney areas. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Page 1885

The Hon. D. J. GAY [10.36 p.m.]: The Opposition cannot support Greens amendment No. 2. We have a problem with making it compulsory to divide an area into wards. The Opposition has some concern that the amendment may be outside the leave of the bill, but does not suggest that it should be voted against for that reason. The compulsion to divide an area into wards creates a problem in putting together these agreements. The Opposition believes that it would be better if communities were able to make their own decisions.

I understand the Hon. I. Cohen’s motives in moving the amendment. Certainly many members of the National Party at one stage believed that the establishment of wards was the only way to protect country communities. At present there is mixed feeling about the issue. The Opposition believes that in any amalgamation the local community needs to be able to make its own decision, and that it should not have something forced on it. The Opposition opposes the amendment.

The Hon. I. COHEN [10.38 p.m.]: As I understand the amendment it does not seek to make wards compulsory but to provide a choice about whether an area should be divided into wards. The Greens do not advocate wards for all local councils in the State. The amendment provides a choice. It certainly does not compulsorily advocate wards. There may be a misunderstanding about the amendment based on an earlier draft of it which the honourable member may have had, or advice from my office may have been unclear. The Greens do not advocate, and have never advocated, wards as the way to go necessarily. However, in certain circumstances the community may wish to have wards.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [10.39 p.m.]: The Hon. I. Cohen is partly correct when he says that the amendment does not make wards compulsory but provides that a poll may be taken with respect to wards. The Opposition believes that the amendment would complicate any poll put to the community.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [10.40 p.m.]: This amendment relates to a requirement for a poll of electors on whether an area should be divided into wards. The legislation already provides for a requirement for a constitutional referendum of electors for the formation of wards under section 210. The amendment is therefore unnecessary. In any case, it would not be appropriate for the Boundaries Commission to make recommendations with respect to wards. This is better left to councils and their communities, as is already provided in the legislation.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [10.40 p.m.]: The Opposition will not move its amendment No. 3. It will withdraw its amendment No. 4. With the concurrence of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, it will move an amendment to withdraw "Director-General" from his amendment as it is in conflict with the amendment it is supporting.

The Hon. I. COHEN [10.41 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 3:

No 3 Page 6, Schedule 1. Insert after line 4:

(2) In the case of a proposal for the amalgamation of two or more areas under section 218A, the proposal must be referred to the Boundaries Commission.

This amendment will ensure that when making or receiving an amalgamation proposal the Minister must refer it to the Boundaries Commission but not the director-general. Currently, the bill does not require a mandatory inquiry if there is agreement between councils. In the Greens’ view it is preferable that the Boundaries Commission examine this issue, as it has the power to conduct a more thorough inquiry than the director-general. We agree that minor boundary adjustments should not be referred to the Boundaries Commission. The rest of proposed section 218F and section 218 of the Act allow for minor boundary adjustments to be considered by the director-general. This amendment will achieve that.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [10.43 p.m.]: The Opposition agrees with the Greens and supports this amendment. As the honourable member said, it will ensure that all small boundary adjustments do not have to go to the Boundaries Commission but can be handled by the director-general. We understood that to be the intention of the Greens and that is what was detailed to the Committee. That was the intention of one of our amendments that fell by the wayside at the last vote. It is a sensible amendment and details some areas that I suspect the Government missed in its drafting. I congratulate the honourable member on his amendment.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [10.44 p.m.]: A proposal for an amalgamation of two or more areas must be referred for examination and report by the Boundaries Commission and no-one else. The Government’s amendment will address this issue, therefore we cannot accept this amendment. It will remove the ability to streamline the voluntary amalgamation process which is one of the purposes of the bill.

Page 1886

As a number of councils have already indicated their desire to examine the voluntary amalgamation proposal, this would tie up the Boundaries Commission for an extended period and defeat the purpose of assisting councils wishing to amalgamate voluntarily. The director-general will still be subject to the same strict requirements as the Boundaries Commission under section 263 of the Act but the Government’s amendment will ensure that the director-general’s report is reviewed by the Boundaries Commission.

Amendment negatived.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [10.45 p.m.]: I move Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 6, schedule 1. Insert after line 8:

(3) For the purpose of examining a proposal for the amalgamation of two or more areas under section 218A, the Boundaries Commission or Director-General, as the case requires, must (at no cost to the councils of those areas) seek the views of electors of each of those areas:

(a) by means of:

(i) advertised public meetings, and

(ii) invitations for public submissions, and

(iii) postal surveys or opinion polls, in which reply-paid questionnaires are distributed to all electors, or

(b) by means of formal polls.

(4) The period over which the views of electors are to be sought as referred to in subsection (3) must be a period of at least 40 days.

(5) Part 3 of Chapter 4 applies to a formal poll taken by the Boundaries Commission or Director-General in the same way as it applies to a council poll referred to in that Part.

My amendment proposes to involve public consultation in the proposed amalgamations in a simple way, as distinct from the earlier proposal that was defeated. It referred to a prescriptive constitutional referendum. My amendment will not require thousands of dollars to be spent to have the proposed amalgamations brought to the attention of the public. It is virtually normal procedure to write to any relevant organisations or groups asking for public submissions.

My third method of seeking views gives flexibility to the Boundaries Commission to have either a postal survey or an opinion poll, and we have deliberately included the word "or" at the end of that provision so that a formal poll is not required by the Boundaries Commission. It is an option. The commission can take into account the first three proposals and/or the last one or parts of each. The amendment gives the Boundaries Commission flexibility. Nothing in this motion forces it to have a full-blown, formal poll or referendum. It is an option open to the commission in a particular situation.

There has been some question about the length of time required, and I know 28 days has been mentioned, but I believe no harm is done by having a period of 40 days, as suggested in proposed new subsection (4) of my amendment. As stated by the Hon. J. S. Tingle, although there is a degree of interest within the local council area, it takes time for the news to filter through to everyone. Someone could be away on holidays or involved with some family tragedy or illness, or someone could be away attending a wedding or some other happy activity, and may not be aware of the proposed amalgamation.

The consultation period needs to be longer than three or four weeks because a good proportion of the population will always be on holidays or potentially absent from the electorate. A consultation period of 40 days from start to finish is not too long and allows a fair time frame for advertising public meetings, media reporting and community debate. In that way the issue will be brought to the attention of the public. If an advertisement is placed in the local paper it will force that paper to make it a front page story and in that way everybody will become aware of the proposed amalgamation.

Clause (5) of my amendment refers to another clause in the original bill in which the council poll is included as one of the matters that the Boundaries Commission could consider. My amendment does not require the onerous task of a referendum. However, it provides for reasonable and diverse community participation, an opportunity for the public to have a choice, and it encourages and entrenches the spirit of a democratic process. This is a reasonable amendment. Some of the Government’s advisers said that some of these things have already been done. If that is the case, I urge all honourable members to support the amendment. I gather that there is already strong support for my amendment and I understand that it will be carried.

It is not helpful in this sort of climate to have hanging over the Committee the threat that the Government will withdraw the bill. I call on the Government, even at this late stage, to reverse its heavy-handed approach in this debate. If my
Page 1887
amendment is carried it will be considered in debate in the other place and I hope that it will be accepted, even though it is not the intention of the Government to accept it in this Chamber. I hope that the Government accepts my amendment. Once the bill is returned to the Legislative Council it will have to be debated in this Chamber tomorrow. We had advance notice of that possibility. The Government might dig in its heels and return the bill to the Legislative Council with an amendment to my amendment. Let us include a greater degree of participation in the amalgamation process.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [10.53 p.m.]: This is a reasonable amendment. Even those people who are rusted onto the Australian Labor Party would be able to support it. Earlier, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile referred to a period of 40 days. Perhaps he should have referred to 40 days and 40 nights, as I am sure that is where that provision came from - "Get behind me Satan for thou art a stumbling block to me." I hope that this amendment will be carried and that even those who are slavishly following the Labor line will be able to agree to it.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [10.54 p.m.]: Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has moved an amendment which has some virtue but which also has some significant faults. The honourable gentleman said that if his amendment is carried and the bill goes to the Legislative Assembly it is possible that that House will propose an amendment to his amendment.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Government might be able to negotiate some changes to his amendment, which might be acceptable to the Government, the Committee and the honourable member. A number of honourable members have an interest in this matter. They could participate in discussions over the next 10 minutes or so. If the honourable member is willing to do that I suggest that, to suit the convenience of the Committee, the Chairman do now leave the chair and report progress.

Progress reported from Committee and leave granted to sit again.