STATUTES AMENDMENT (MEMBERS ALLOWANCES—METROPOLITAN COUNCILS) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (10:48): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the City of Adelaide Act 1998 and the Local Government Act 1999. Read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (10:48): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I bring before the house a proposal for a different way of calculating the allowances to be provided to members of local government. At present, by regulation, a maximum allowance is set and each council can choose whether they pay their local councillors that maximum amount or something less. Most, not surprisingly, allocate the maximum allowance to their members. I think that this gives rise to some unfairness. In this legislation, I have produced a simple formula that relates local government members allowances to the number of electors they have. I think anyone would agree that, the more people one has to look after as a ward councillor or an area councillor, the busier one will be. They will receive more phone calls, they will have to visit more sites, visit people at home, and so on.

I stress that the legislation is set to only apply to suburban councils; that is, any local government area that has any part of its area within the Adelaide metropolitan boundary. It has to be recognised that country councils are in a different situation. You cannot have country councils that represent the same number of population as do city councils or you would have local government the size of federal electorates.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr HANNA: Let me give some figures to illustrate the point of the lack of equity at present. For example, my two local councils, the City of Marion and the City of Onkaparinga, have an elector representation quota of 5,075, in the case of Marion, and 5,657, in the case of Onkaparinga. In the case of metropolitan councils, I think only Tea Tree Gully exceeds that, with a representation quota of nearly 6,000. That representation quota is derived from the total number of electors divided by the total number of members. So, it is as simple as that.

The contrast is between those councils and others, such as Norwood, Payneham and St Peters, which has a representation quota of less than 2,000, and several that have between 2,000 and 3,000, such as Campbelltown, Holdfast Bay and Burnside. So, we literally have councils where the councillors have twice as many people to represent and yet they are paid the same amount. I think that is unfair. Fair pay for fair work, I think, is a principle that most people agree with.

The process for setting the rate is similar to what we have now. It is just that a different maximum allowance would be set by regulation. Councils would then still choose what to do but, almost inevitably, the maximum amount would be set. This measure if adopted would bring more equity to local government pay. It is not to say that there should be a reduction or increase in councillors' pay necessarily because, in any case, the new amounts will be set by regulation. It does bring a differential between those councillors who have a lot of people to represent and those who have few to represent, but the precise amount relative to the amount they are paid at the moment would remain to be set by regulation.

The Attorney-General by way of interjection said that country councils should be included in this measure. I do not agree with that. If one looks at the representation quota for country councils one can see that the vast majority are substantially under 1,000.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Mr HANNA: For the benefit of the member for Finniss, I will explain again. That is the number of electors divided by the total number of members of the council. For the benefit of the member for Finniss, I point out that, at last count, for Alexandrina Council the quota is 1,811. So that is somewhat similar to Norwood, Payneham and St Peters, which is about the lowest of the metropolitan councils, and one might well expect that, given the size of Victor Harbor. However, that is an exception, though—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Mr HANNA: —Murray Bridge—among country councils. Most are well under 1,000. They are in a different category and I leave them to one side. There is another great advantage of adopting this measure (apart from addressing an issue of equity between councillors within different suburban councils), that is, that it may serve as a motivation for those who represent only a few people, such as in Walkerville, to choose amalgamation with other councils.

I do not mean to ascribe the motive of greed to local government members. I have been one myself. I know how hard they work and the allowance is generally well spent. However, I do suspect that, if local government members with only a few representors were being paid less according to the formula I am putting forward today, there might be greater consideration of merger with larger local government entities. We will see how that comes out in the wash.

In summary, the bill deals with metropolitan councils, the Adelaide City Council, as well as other councils that have an area coming within the metropolitan Adelaide boundary. If one looks at the clauses of the legislation, part 1 is largely formal, part 2 deals with the City of Adelaide (because, of course, the City of Adelaide is distinct in a number of ways from other metropolitan councils) and part 3 deals with allowances for the remainder of Adelaide metropolitan councils.

The formula is self-explanatory once one reads the definitions. Clearly, the calculation is done to include the representor quota to which I have already referred. I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.