House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1) 53 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills City of Adelaide (Capital City Committee) Amendment Bill City of Adelaide (Capital City Committee) Amendment Bill City of Adelaide (Capital City Committee) Amendment Bill Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 19 June 2014.) Mr ODENWALDER House of Assembly Little Para Mr ODENWALDER (Little Para) (11:21): The government opposes this bill. We have had this debate before in this place and, surprise, surprise, we oppose it for exactly the same reasons we opposed it the last time the member for Adelaide proposed something similar. I am not going to go over that whole debate today. The member for Taylor, the member for Croydon and others put this argument succinctly on that previous occasion in the last parliament. Just to reiterate very briefly, the City of Adelaide Act was passed in 1998, and the Capital City Committee was established as a vehicle for the Adelaide City Council and the state government to come together to talk about issues of strategic importance to the city of Adelaide. It was established to provide a forum for consultation and discussion, and the sharing of ideas between the Adelaide City Council and the state government. Let me emphasise that that is the state government, not the state parliament. While I am sure the member for Adelaide is a hardworking and well-respected member of parliament, she is not a member of the executive government. You need to win a few more seats for that. Mr Pengilly House of Assembly Mr Pengilly: Neither are you, Lee. Mr ODENWALDER House of Assembly Mr ODENWALDER: You need to win a few more seats for that. Mr Pengilly House of Assembly Mr Pengilly: Neither am I. Mr ODENWALDER House of Assembly Mr ODENWALDER: No, that's right. Members interjecting: Mr ODENWALDER House of Assembly Mr ODENWALDER: Member for Finniss, I don't want to be a member of the Capital City Committee, by any stretch of the imagination— The Hon. S.W. Key interjecting: Mr ODENWALDER House of Assembly Mr ODENWALDER: —neither does the member for Ashford. Members interjecting: Mr ODENWALDER House of Assembly Mr ODENWALDER: I will go further. Mr Knoll House of Assembly Mr Knoll: You can lead the charge—the revolution. Mr ODENWALDER House of Assembly Mr ODENWALDER: I seek your protection, Deputy Speaker, from the rowdy member for Schubert. The Deputy Speaker House of Assembly The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are seeking protection from the Chair, are you? I will leave a note for the Speaker, member for Schubert. You will start off with a call to order, I think, at question time. Mr ODENWALDER House of Assembly Mr ODENWALDER: Thank you. I appreciate your protection, Deputy Speaker. So, she is not a member of the executive government, sadly. Members interjecting: Mr ODENWALDER House of Assembly Mr ODENWALDER: Yes, that's right; sorry. It is difficult for Hansard to recognise the irony. Perhaps those little stars— An honourable member House of Assembly An honourable member: Italicise. Mr ODENWALDER House of Assembly Mr ODENWALDER: Italicise. Even if the member for Adelaide was a member of the executive government, that still does not give her entree to the Capital City Committee. The Capital City Committee, as the member for Taylor pointed out last time, was established by the Liberal government in 1998 and, from that point until 2002, the Hon. Michael Armitage, the then member for Adelaide, was not a member of this committee, so the argument remains the same. Until the member for Adelaide is part of the executive government, and can make the argument in her own party room that she should, by virtue of being a member of the executive government and being a member for Adelaide, be part of the Capital City Committee, the government opposes this on logical grounds. Mr SPEIRS House of Assembly Bright Mr SPEIRS (Bright) (11:24): I too will speak on this matter. I think many of the arguments were put quite clearly by the member for Adelaide when she opened debate on this item a few weeks ago and really made it very clear that she believes she brings that local grassroots approach to representing the City of Adelaide's residents, who she feels have, from time to time, been overlooked by the involvement of the government and the Adelaide City Council. As the member for Adelaide has emphasised time and time again to members of the house, she feels that she is able to bring a creative and imaginative approach to representing the local residents and to advocate on their behalf. She feels that over time the Adelaide City Council has had difficulties in representing the wider interests of the residents of the city and has also struggled to have an effective working relationship, historically, with the government. I think that the member for Adelaide's desire to be part of this committee is something we should support in the house and try to make happen. If we looked at this in relation to other cities in South Australia, I am sure that if we were to have a committee on the City of Adelaide or on Kangaroo Island, or somewhere like that, we would certainly look at having the local member heavily involved in that committee. So, there should be no reason why the member for Adelaide should not be heavily involved in a committee which represents the people by whom she was elected—not on one occasion, but on two occasions, and two occasions which were very much against the odds. We have to remember that this is a member of parliament who was elected with a swing of almost 15 per cent in 2010 and only saw a swing of 1 per cent against her in 2014. She is an excellent local member who has just arrived in the chamber—it is great to see her come down—and she should be on this committee. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Gardner.