STATUTES AMENDMENT (MEMBERS ALLOWANCES—METROPOLITAN COUNCILS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 November 2007. Page 1639.)

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Volunteers, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister Assisting in Early Childhood Development) (10:37): I rise to respond on behalf of the government to the member for Mitchell's private member's bill seeking to amend the City of Adelaide Act 1998 and the Local Government Act 1999 as they relate respectively to the elected member allowances available to Adelaide City Council and Adelaide metropolitan councils.

The government does not support this bill. Substantial progress has been made in relation to establishing a new direction in setting local government elected member allowances for all South Australian councils. The government supports amendments that will be of benefit to all councils, rather than a piecemeal attempt to provide minor changes for the supposed benefits of some metropolitan elected members.

In his second reading speech, the member for Mitchell stated that, when councils set their allowances, most, not surprisingly, allocate the maximum allowance to their members. That is not correct. Of the 19 councils that are the subject of this bill only nine have set the maximum for their members. I understand that, taken altogether, only 11 of the 67 councils whose members are paid an allowance have set that maximum amount.

The local government independent panel that undertook a review of elected member allowances in 2005 reported that the local government sector rejected a proposal to set allowances by reference to population alone as being too simplistic and narrowly focused. The sector looked for a range of criteria to be considered, not least of which was the capacity to pay the allowances.

In his second reading explanation, the member for Mitchell stated that the current regulations set a maximum amount and councils choose whether to pay this amount or a lesser amount. In fact, the current legislation provides for both a minimum and maximum amount and councils must set an amount within these bounds. It is important to ensure that we do have a minimum amount. I have been committed to ensuring that remains in place, simply so that we can ensure that people are not played off against one another and people are not forced to go onto council with no remuneration. We would see people with very little income but very keen to support their communities being excluded from councils, because it simply does cost people to be part of a council.

Part 2 of this bill revokes section 24, subsections (7), (8) and (9) of the City of Adelaide Act 1998, and instead provides three formulas for determining maximum amounts for the Lord Mayor, area councillors and ward councillors, but no provision is made for determining a minimum or, indeed, any alternative amount. Mirror provisions are drafted in part 3 of the bill exempting Adelaide metropolitan councils from the provisions contained in section 76, subsections (8), (9) and (10) of the Local Government Act 1999, which refer to the setting of minimum and maximum allowance amounts. Proposed new section 76(11) provides three formulas for determining the maximum amount to be paid to the persons holding the role of principal member, area councillor and ward councillor, but, again, no formula to establish an alternative amount.

Furthermore, neither part 2 or 3 contains details as to how the amount set by regulation should be determined, nor do they contain provisions for paying additional allowance amounts to deputy principals or chairs of committees. This bill would require the state government to continue to set amounts by regulation, which is not in line with the government's desired outcome of having these amounts determined independently.

The bill would also require councils to continue determining and reviewing their elected member allowances, as is the current practice. This is contrary to the position preferred by the sector, which seeks to have allowances set and reviewed by an entirely independent external process. The member for Mitchell stated that another greater advantage of adopting this measure would be that it might motivate those who represent relatively few electors to choose to amalgamate with other councils. This government does not wish to enforce amalgamations on councils or communities, but we do support voluntary amalgamation where it can be demonstrated that local communities will benefit from such an initiative. It should not be based on how much councillors are paid. This government supports councils working cooperatively to achieve savings on the sharing of services, even if amalgamations do not occur.

More importantly, councils should take a broader and more strategic approach and come together to explore opportunities to deliver overall service delivery benefits to their regions. Consideration of these issues should be guided by what works best for the people whom members are elected to represent. It should hardly be desirable to create a situation where personal financial gain, as opposed to community benefit and a more effective business model, might steer elected members thinking on potential amalgamations. It is for these reasons the government opposes the bill.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The minister still has five minutes. I remind members to turn off their mobile phones when coming into the chamber.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Thank you, sir. The government has been very clear in its discussions with the local government sector and the Local Government Association that it will not force amalgamations. Even though some mischief has been whipped up on occasions by some members opposite, we are about working with the local government sector and assisting those that identify benefits for their communities. If that is about amalgamation, we will certainly assist them in that.

But, as I said, it should not be about what councillors are paid. We were involved in a lot of discussion with the Local Government Association about the setting of allowances. We were very committed to ensuring that a minimum amount is paid. If my recollection is correct, we in fact introduced members' allowances many years ago to ensure that all sectors of our community had the opportunity to be involved in local government: that it was not just an opportunity for people with financial resources and backing to become councillors.

It was important for, if you like, stay-at-home mums, if they were inclined to go into local government, to have the opportunity to do so, and for aged pensioners or those people not necessarily on a high income from their employment to do so as well. It takes an enormous amount of time and commitment for people to be involved in local councils and they should be respected for the effort they put in. This does come at a cost, as the people concerned are expected to make donations, they must present themselves appropriately, and they are continuously attending community functions in their areas.

Increasingly, our communities demand higher and higher standards from local government and, again, the government is committed to ensuring that our councils have the highest possible accountability processes in place. So we are again working collaboratively with the local government sector. It is not our aim to take them over, sack them or amalgamate them, although we do hear from time to time the odd statements from the opposition that they are very keen on doing that sort of thing. Let me say that it is not our vision to be sacking the Adelaide City Council, either, as some might read into recent media reports.

There are always opportunities for reform and improvement, and we are very keen to do that. Only today, on ABC Radio they were talking about Tea Tree Gully council and the Golden Grove development, and it was interesting to hear from the mayor. Clearly, the development there, if it were being undertaken today, would not be handled in the same way as it was back in the mid-1980s. The council was heavily involved in that matter and has looked to in some way abdicating its responsibility for what is happening in relation to the amenity of the area.

I have tried to work with the council over many years to ensure a sustainable plan for the Golden Grove area. It has been a source of great frustration and now we are in a situation of experiencing quite dire water restrictions, and the local parks and gardens are literally dying before our very eyes. So, local government has incredible responsibility, managing a whole range of areas that impact on our lives, and it is appropriate that councillors receive appropriate remuneration.

Time expired.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (10:48): I thank the minister for her reply and give credit to the officer who prepared such a thorough response to my proposal. The proposal is essentially about the relativities of pay between councillors, at least within the metropolitan area. I maintain that those councillors on larger councils with a large population in their ward to look after are bound to do more work than those who have wards of a few hundred people. The discrepancies are very considerable, as I pointed out earlier. I believe that the harder you work the more you should be rewarded.

I know that, technically, the councillors' allowances are just that—they are meant to be reimbursement for the cost of carrying out one's duties—but in common perception they are seen as a reward for the work that is put in—and rightly so. I do not begrudge that reward; I just think it should be distributed more fairly. I note that my legislation still provides for the minister essentially to set the bar. It is just that there would be different bars for different situations, in other words, variant according to population.

I thought it was quite sweet of the minister to suggest that there was no way that councillors would act on the basis of being motivated to receive more pay when it came to decisions about amalgamations or anything else; it was very sweet indeed. Perhaps that is so, but the primary motivation behind this proposal is to encourage those councillors who have a heavier workload than others across the metropolitan area. It is as simple as that, and I think everyone can see the fairness in it. Equally, I know that there are those who would lobby the government and opposition to have no change to the status quo.

I think the response of the minister in relation to this proposal shows a certain amount of gutlessness, which is typical of this government when it comes to any sort of reform which might offend a few people in the community. Notwithstanding that, it is worthwhile and I put it forward. I commend it to the house.

Second reading negatived.