To my mind in relation to example 1 a 'complaint' from an overseas person might constitute an AAC depending on circumstances. If a person resided overseas but owns a property and there is established detriment (to the person or property) caused by the roosting bats, I would regard the property owner an affected person. For example the property might be an investment property that is unable to be used for it's intended purpose as a result of the bats.... I think the issue in this scenario is more the fact - can the persons complaint be tied to an administrative action of a local government.
I would not recommend that the default position be that someone is not deemed an affected person, just because they reside overseas.
In relation to the example 2 - potholes - again, depends on the circumstances. If this was the first occasion that Council had been made aware of the condition of the road, I would most likely treat the notification as a service request.
Should there have been prior notifications about the condition of the road, and Council failed to respond or acknowledge those concerns, then I would most likely consider the complaint in line with Council's AAC Framework.
When considering this type of complaint, it should be noted however that Council's are afforded certain 'protections' under the Civil Liabilities Act 2003, s.35.
