CITY OF ADELAIDE (CAPITAL CITY COMMITTEE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 September 2012.)

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon) (11:22): This is yet another attempt by the member for Adelaide to place herself on the Capital City Committee. It purports to be a proposed law, a bill, a normative measure, but, in fact, it is for the benefit of one identified person, and generally our procedures frown upon such attempts in the parliament.

The difficulty that the Adelaide City Council presents to the state is that it is essentially a suburban council superimposed on the capital city, and it behaves like a suburban council. Let me give just a few illustrations. One is that it has permitted parts of the Parklands to be fenced for private tennis courts and the gates locked. The Adelaide City Council recently issued a leaflet regarding Adelaide Oval, in which it said that the Parklands were the property of the ratepayers of the City of Adelaide. Of course, the Parklands are the property of all South Australians, not ratepayers of the City of Adelaide.

Ms SANDERSON: Point of order, Mr Acting Speaker: relevance. This is not an opportunity to berate the Adelaide City Council; this is about a bill in parliament.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): There is no point of order. I am listening carefully to the member.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Another illustration is the North Adelaide Railway Station, a beautiful 19^thcentury building, which would be ideal for a cafe or a restaurant. When an attempt was made in the 1990s to make it a restaurant, the faction associated with councillor Anne Moran, of Mills Terrace, North Adelaide—

Ms SANDERSON: On a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker: this has nothing to do with the context of my bill. I draw the member back to the context of the bill.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): There is no point of order.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Forces associated with councillor Anne Moran were successful in Adelaide City Council on stopping the North Adelaide Railway Station becoming a restaurant because it would spoil the residential amenity of people living up the hill on the other side of the golf course, in Mills Terrace. Apparently, the clash of knife on fork in the restaurant would generate so much noise that they would be disturbed in the quiet enjoyment of their homes.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Point of order. I am trying to be reasonable here, but this is ridiculous. Clearly, the member is talking about a completely different matter. I understand he has a long-held history of frustrations with the City of Adelaide, but this is a bill relating to the City of Adelaide's Capital City Committee—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: It's why we need a capital city committee.

Mr GRIFFITHS: It is—to make decisions for the future, not to have a historical perspective put upon it by you.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): There is no point of order. I will listen carefully to the member.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It is mischiefs like these that the Capital City Committee was designed to address. I was there, a member of the parliament, when this committee was created by legislation. It was a decision of the previous government not to put the then member for Adelaide, the then member for the state district of Adelaide, the Hon. Michael Armitage, on the committee. He did not serve on the committee in its original existence under the state Liberal government between 1998 and 2002, and there was a good reason for that, that the committee could not fulfil its role in addressing mischiefs such as these while an ally of the Adelaide City Council was placed on the committee in the guise of giving proper representation when, in fact, it would skew the committee in favour of the city council and against the government of the day, and that was a Liberal government.

The member for Adelaide assumes that if you are elected to the exalted position of member for the state district of Adelaide you must by dint of your elevation be a member of the government. And great is her discomfiture at finding herself the member for Adelaide and not a member of the government. What a shock! Well, from time to time the member for Adelaide will be in opposition. From time to time the member for Adelaide will not be a member of the government, and this is one of those occasions.

However, I point out to the member for Adelaide that when the last Liberal member for Adelaide was a member of the government, indeed was a minister in the government, his government, his Liberal government, did not put him on the committee, and for good reason. The committee is meant to be a balance between the state government, representing the interests of South Australia as a whole, and the Adelaide City Council, representing the suburban interests of a particular kind of North Adelaide householder, one of the minority who vote in city council elections.

Now, to hold that balance there must be equal representation. To put the state member for Adelaide onto the committee would spoil that representation and at this time give the Adelaide City Council an effective majority on that committee, which would defeat its purpose. So, the government will not be supporting this bill. We will not be supporting it on principle. We would not support it whomever the member for Adelaide was.

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (11:29): I would like to thank members in both houses for their contributions regarding this bill. It is great to have the bill passed in the upper house, where the majority of members are able to analyse the bill and judge it on its merits and not simply be told how to vote. I am extremely disappointed that the government has indicated—

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Point of order: Mr Acting Speaker, the member for Adelaide has just impugned the motives and reflected on the integrity and the motives of this honourable house. She has implied that we did not give meritorious consideration to the bill. My understanding is that standing orders do not permit that.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): I think that it is correct. I think the member for Adelaide should withdraw that.

Ms SANDERSON: I withdraw that. I first introduced this bill in 2011, then again in May this year due to the proroguing of parliament. I found it quite astonishing that the member for Taylor saw my attempt to gain better representation for the people of Adelaide as an opportunity for political or media pointscoring. Since being elected, I have introduced several bills in response to pleas from constituents as that is my duty, to serve my electorate. I also mention that I have been successful on one occasion so far, which is a rarity in this house.

The member for Taylor seems quite concerned about the equal numbers of local and state government members on this committee. If this is her main issue, I ask that we amend the bill. There are several options: first, we could remove one of the government members to keep local and state representation the same; we could add another councillor, making it four plus four; or we could include the member for Adelaide as an observer with no voting rights. This is not about my trying to control the group, which would be pretty hard—

Time expired.