City of Adelaide (Capital City Committee) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 22 May 2014.)

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:10): I stand in support of the member for Adelaide in the moving of this bill. As we have spoken in this chamber only a very few short minutes ago about the opportunity for democracy to work, I think that, very clearly in this case, it was extremely disappointing when the member for Adelaide made the Liberal Party aware of the fact that, by virtue of holding that very important position, she was not granted, as the representative of the people, the opportunity to be on the Capital City Committee.

As I understand it, the bill is relatively easy to understand, and I would hope that the government indicates what its position will be on this. I know that it has not supported it in the past, which is extremely disappointing, but the member for Adelaide, to be the wonderful advocate that she is for the people who live in the city and come to the city, needs to be involved in the decisions that are made that impact upon the city.

I believe that the bill provides the opportunity for the Premier, or his deputy, and two other ministers to be on the committee, with the Lord Mayor, or the deputy, and two other elected members. By virtue of increasing the number by one person, as I understand it, the bill provides the right in perpetuity for the member of Adelaide to be a representative no matter what political party they are a member of or, indeed, if they are a minister. To ensure that that local representation is there is absolutely the right step forward.

It is extremely frustrating that a similar bill from the member for Adelaide, in the previous parliament, was not supported, and I just cannot understand it. If you want to be prepared to open yourselves up to a level of scrutiny, review of decisions and involvement of a bipartisan nature, it seems to me that this is an absolute example of where agreeing to this bill would allow the representative to be involved and have an input.

At the end of the day, the 30,000 people or thereabouts who live in the member for Adelaide's electorate, and the 23,000 or so voters, are excluded from having their direct representative actually being involved in those decisions. Yes, they vote for other people who might be in the city of Adelaide; that is a much smaller number and, because it is a voluntary system, a lot less people actually vote in local government elections.

Here we have a person who, by virtue of hard work and commitment to the community over a second term now, is being denied the opportunity to represent and be the voice of the people who actually decided to support her candidacy. I think it is an extremely disappointing decision. I know that the Liberal Party is absolutely positive about the fact that, no matter what occurs in the future, the member for Adelaide needs to be involved in this committee.

I am sure that other members on this side will speak in support of it. It is a positive step forward. It is a way of ensuring that democracy still has the opportunity to be exercised to its absolute fullest extent, as it should be. This is a way to ensure that the member for Adelaide, and future members for Adelaide, are involved in those key decisions that are made.

Yes, there will be some issues that might have to remain confidential—I understand that. I am sure that the present member and future members will commit to do that, but that person has to be allowed to be involved in those discussions. I look forward to the passage of the bill through the parliament.

I hope that the Minister for Local Government, as an Independent member who is all about democracy, has been involved in local government before and enjoys being involved in decisions made on behalf of communities, will respect the fact that this is not a political issue: this is purely a representative one about the ability to exercise that voice, and it is one that deserves to be supported.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:13): I also rise in support. I think it is small-minded and shortsighted to oppose this particular bill, and that it should be supported. The member for Adelaide has worked expeditiously for her electorate since taking over, after the complete thrashing inflicted on her predecessor, the Hon. Jane Lomax-Smith, who took on a ministry two seconds after arriving here and went out in two seconds flat as well.

So what it proves to me is that as the current member for Adelaide has done an outstanding job and knows her electorate inside out, it is indeed petty if the government rejects this particular motion, and I feel that it would be done on purely political grounds. I have no doubt that if the President of the Local Government Association Mayor O'Loughlin had won, the government would have gone out of its way to incorporate that person on to the capital city committee. However, because it happens to be a Liberal member who, as I said, knows her electorate inside out, the government seeks not to have the member for Adelaide included.

This may well set a precedent for other funny little things to go on in this place, with commissioners and little committees that are appointed at will—but I think this is a fine way forward. I am interested to see whether the member for Waite and the member for Frome support this. It is about time that we flushed them out on a couple of things so we will wait to see what happens. However, I have great pleasure in supporting this particular motion.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:16): I rise to speak on the City of Adelaide (Capital City Committee) Amendment Bill brought to this house by the member for Adelaide, which is entirely appropriate. The government's seeming objection to this bill by the member for Adelaide is purely based on politics. At present the City of Adelaide Act 1998 allows for the establishment of a capital city committee made up of the Premier or deputy, and two ministers, together with the Lord Mayor or deputy and two councillors. The objective of the act is to recognise, promote and enhance the special, social, commercial, cultural and civic role the city of Adelaide place as the capital city and heart of South Australia.

There is no-one here who would disagree with that very sensible and very rational objective. However, it is nonsense and irrational that the duly elected member for Adelaide would not have a place on that committee. If the member for Adelaide is not in government then there is not one person from state government on that committee who has been elected by the people of the city of Adelaide—that does not make sense at all.

If you imagine a situation where the member for Adelaide was in government, and whether that person was a minister or not, if the government chose to put different ministers and not the member for Adelaide on that committee, that would be crazy, too. Can you imagine if the member for Adelaide right now happened to be a government member but the government chose not to make that member one of its representatives on the committee? Members opposite would say that was crazy; members opposite would say that it was absolutely ridiculous that the member for Adelaide was not on the committee. We say that the same principle is true when the member for Adelaide is in opposition—it is crazy that the member for Adelaide is not on that committee.

This is an amendment bill that was passed in the upper house in the last parliament so there was a broad selection of members of parliament, none of whom are the member for Adelaide, who believe that this is a very good idea. It is just common sense, and I am sure that if this was the City of Port Adelaide (city committee) bill, the government would say it was absolutely sensible that the member for Port Adelaide would be on that. I am sure that if this was the city of Port Pirie (city committee) amendment bill, the minister for regional development would be saying that it was absolutely fundamental that he, as the member for Frome, be on that committee.

I can assure you that if this was the City of Port Augusta (city committee) bill, I would be saying the member for Stuart should be there. The member for Port Adelaide would want to be on it if it was about Port Adelaide, the member for Frome would want to be on it if it was about Port Pirie, and the member for Mount Gambier if it was Mount Gambier, etc. If it was Elizabeth there might be a bit of a stoush between which one of the members opposite would want to be the representative, but I can guarantee you every one of them would want to be. They would be fighting it out to make sure that one of them was going to be there, even if they did not happen to be a minister they would be saying we need an amendment bill because this only allows for the Premier and two ministers, but none of us are a minister at present, so we have to change it because it is fundamental that we are there. That is what members opposite would say and they would be right to say that.

The member for Adelaide is right to say that she should have the right to be on this committee, and if the member for Adelaide were not on our side we would agree with exactly the same principle. It is sensible and logical, and very importantly the member for Adelaide would probably be the only state parliament representative who would not have a conflict of interest in taking a place on this Capital City Committee, because it is very likely that issues discussed would be solely in the interests of the city of Adelaide and the Premier might have a conflict of interest with other issues that the Premier is involved in. The two other ministers might have conflicts of interest with other work that those ministers are involved in. They would all have a conflict of interest with the committee specifically for the city of Adelaide at some stage.

However, the one and only state government elected member of parliament who would not ever have a conflict of interest with the work of the Adelaide Capital City Committee would be the member for Adelaide because the member for Adelaide's first and foremost interest in his or her work is always going to be the electorate of Adelaide, the city of Adelaide and that area. There are many good reasons why all members of this parliament should support this bill. I commend the member for Adelaide for bringing it forward. It is common sense. If the shoe were on the other foot, everyone opposite would use exactly this same logic and, regardless of who is in government, the sitting member for Adelaide would be the only member of the South Australian parliament who will never have a conflict of interest with this Capital City Committee.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (11:22): This is a very fine measure that has been brought to the house's attention this morning by the member for Adelaide, I commend her for it, and I support the sentiment expressed in the bill that she presents. As my colleague the member for Stuart has so eloquently put, the member for the seat of Adelaide which encompasses the city should, irrespective of which party or political affiliation they have, have the opportunity to sit on the committee which is charged with looking after the city of Adelaide on behalf of all South Australians.

There is often the argument about the uniqueness of the city of Adelaide. The city council which manages a lot of the things that happen in the city only represents those people who are resident in the city of Adelaide but the city of Adelaide is obviously the place which all South Australians gravitate to for a whole range of functions, whether it be retail or business-related or to interact with government services. It is important to all of the people of the state. I could say the government's lack of support for this measure is one of churlishness because they were beaten at the previous election in the seat of Adelaide by the current member but I think it is even worse than that. This again is a deliberate ploy by this Labor government to mess with democracy in this state.

They do not want the elected member for the state seat of Adelaide to have any platforms at all. Anything they can do to undermine the authority of the member for the seat of Adelaide simply because the current member is on the opposite side of the political divide to the government, they will take those steps to undermine the authority. The electors of that seat want the elected member to represent them and their interests which includes the interests which are dealt with within the Capital City Committee.

I think it is important and imperative that whomever is elected to the seat of Adelaide, as the member for Stuart so eloquently put it, should be represented on that committee. I think it is also incredibly important that this house and this parliament gets beyond messing with democracy in this state, which has become commonplace under this government. It is time this parliament recognised that democracy is a fundamental of our society.

I am reminded of what I say to school groups when I bring them on visits to the parliament. I take them through the parliament and I talk them through the procedures and the happenings that occur in this building, but I also remind them that the democratic institution that we enjoy here in Australia, and particularly in South Australia, is probably amongst the finest, if not the finest to be found anywhere in the world. I remind them it was not founded via a bloody revolution. I remind them it works because the people of our community believe in it, and the people of our community will only believe in it when they believe that it is fair, when they believe that they all have an equal say, and when they believe that it is working for them not against them.

That is what underpins our democracy in this state and that is what underpins our form of government, which I would argue is the best in the world. The reality is that a government in such a state that seeks to disenfranchise a duly-elected member for a state seat from serving on a very important committee which is all about a significant part of that seat is beyond churlishness, it attacks our democracy and our democratic principles.

I think this is a very important matter. I think the Labor Party needs to grow up and move on. It needs to be prepared to face up to the people of South Australia rather than hide behind artificial barriers which they have sought to implement to help keep them in office against the wishes of the people of South Australia. It is time the Labor Party got over that and was game to face up to fair electoral fights, whether they be at the local government level or the state government level. That is a problem that this Labor Party has inflicted upon the people of South Australia.

I have pledged to myself and to my leader that I am going to spend the next four years fighting this very important battle because I think democracy is a very important institution and I believe that everything good that occurs in our society is founded on that very fundamental principle. Under a democratic system everybody should have equal rights, be that an equal right to elect a government that they want or, indeed, to get rid of a government that they do not want, and unfortunately the people of South Australia do not enjoy those rights at this stage.

Unfortunately, this government is using its power to prevent a duly-elected member for a seat from fulfilling their duty to the people who put them in that position. That is what this is about. This is about allowing the people of the electorate of Adelaide to have their duly-elected member fully represent them and their interests. I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.R. Kenyon.