House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Local Government (Boundary Reform) Amendment Bill LOCAL GOVERNMENT (BOUNDARY REFORM) AMENDMENT BILL Introduction and First Reading Introduction and First Reading The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly Fisher The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:39): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Local Government Act 1999. Read a first time. Second Reading Second Reading The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly Fisher The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:40): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I will be brief with this bill and the others that are on the Notice Paper. This is essentially a reintroduction of a bill that I first introduced in 2010. It simply creates a commission to look at the boundaries of metropolitan councils and to determine how many councils there should be and where the boundaries should be. This is a model used successfully in New Zealand. I believe it is the best way to go about that issue. We hear from time to time some people saying that Adelaide should have one council; some people are saying two, three or four. We currently have 19 from Gawler to Noarlunga. I think the best and most sensible approach that takes it out of the arena of just a dogfight or a catfight (or whatever you want to call it) is to have a retired judge or someone similar look at the question of the boundaries and the number of councils. That is essentially and simply what this bill seeks to create. As I say, it has worked very well in New Zealand because everyone can make a submission, everyone can have their say and all the experts and others have their input. I think this is an appropriate way to go because otherwise this issue will just keep dragging on. We have people from time to time, as I say, making suggestions about how many councils there should be. Unless you look at it in a proper, sensible, rational way based on research and other factors, then anyone's guess is as good as anyone else's. I commend this bill to the house. I think it has merit and I think it is time that we as a parliament— Mr Pegler interjecting: The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly The Hon. R.B. SUCH: The ever vigilant member for Mount Gambier points out that on page 3— An honourable member interjecting: The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly The Hon. R.B. SUCH: He is good. That's why they elected him. On page 3, sir, there is a typographical error. It says 'not later than 30 June 2011, cause copies of the report to be laid before [parliament]'. I know some people are very capable, but I do not think we have the retrospective power to do that, so that should be changed to 30 June 2013. I think it is a bit close to make it 2012. With the indulgence of the house, I will ask that that typographical error be changed to 2013 on page 3. With those words, I commend the bill to the house. The Deputy Speaker House of Assembly The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have picked up the mistake. The bill will be corrected. The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Further, sir, on page 4 that should be 31 December 2013. I do not blame parliamentary counsel. I should have checked it myself. Both those dates should be changed to 2013, rather than 2011 on page 3 and 2012 on page 4. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Griffiths.