CITY OF ADELAIDE (CAPITAL CITY COMMITTEE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 30 May 2012.)

The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA (16:56): It is pleasing to see the steps undertaken by the Weatherill Labor government to revitalise the City of Adelaide, building the ethos set down in the City of Adelaide Act. We note the recent improvements undertaken by the government in initiatives such as: the impending legislation for laneway bars, a trial success evident during the Adelaide Festival; the government's interest in revitalising the city's live music scene; the recent changes to city precinct shopping regulations; the now not-so-new tram extension and trams; proposed changes to stamp duty on off-the-plan apartments in the city and North Adelaide areas; as well as a host of construction jobs that are evident to all.

It is clear that the government is doing its fair share in supporting the aims of the City of Adelaide Act. With regard to this, some interesting comments were made at a symposium held by the Adelaide City Council on the supposed lack of progress over the years and what was termed by the former head of the Property Council, Bryan Moulds, as a leadership vacuum, or the lack of leadership and vision. I am not going to debate the merits or otherwise of his opinion, but make the suggestion that the infrastructure measures undertaken by the Rann Labor government and the leadership announced by the Premier through the Governor's opening of parliament and subsequent actions do show leadership and substance in this rejuvenation.

Interestingly, another speaker at the symposium, John Mant, said of the lack of progress and momentum that blame could be laid at the feet of the troika (as he put it), that symbiosis between The Adelaide Club, the Adelaide City Council and the upper house, which he said effectively blocked attempts by the state government to regulate planning in the city precinct. I can assure him that the Labor government strives for the betterment of the CBD.

To return to the amendment bill, firstly, it should be pointed out that the act was a Liberal initiative, and for the member for Adelaide to assert that the historical omission of successive members for Adelaide from the committee is a flaw flies against the reasoning given in the debate on the original bill. The then Liberal government was keen to point out in its rejection of the Governance Review Advisory Group (GRAG) recommendations that the present model was decided upon for the firm reasons as outlined in the second reading speeches of the original bill. These are clearly and soundly set out. That there has been no need to alter the structure of the committee speaks well of its design and stability. It is pointed out that the current member for Adelaide offers no explanation as to any supposed inadequacies of the current committee structure.

The defence of the amendment, as moved in the Legislative Council by the Hon. Michelle Lensink, as also argued by the member for Adelaide, rests on the well-beaten theme of democratic right. The member for Adelaide considers democratic right, as much as one can make sense of her idea, as not just conferring rights through parliament as representatives of the interests of the majority of people who visit, study or come to work in the CBD, but to a minority who reside in the city being given a pivotal role alongside the committee in the city's development.

Conversely, extending the argument, should we not invite all the relevant members of parliaments, state and federal, or anyone who has a strong interest in the city to a seat on the committee? Presumably, as she loosely implies, proposals such as the Adelaide Oval project and the new RAH (as opposed by her party) would see the CBD residents exercising some pivotal veto affecting all residents of South Australia. It seems that the claimed democratic right of the member for Adelaide to representation on the committee to represent a minority would outweigh the committee's representation of the majority's interest (of all the state) in the wellbeing of the CBD.

This is an unusual theory of democracy. Clearly, as the GRAG report and the Adelaide 21 report identified, the City of Adelaide is a unique case and it has an importance to the state far beyond that of a village borough of the past. It is not the case that those who reside in the city do not have a voice.

In concluding, the history of the council prior to the enactment of the City of Adelaide Act, as outlined by the then premier the Hon. Dean Brown in his media article in 1996, gives us sound reasons not to interfere with the present structure if we are to see the CBD grow and flourish. The government does not support what is clearly a bill that is in the interests of the member for Adelaide and not in the interests of the City of Adelaide.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:01): In speaking to this bill, the Greens are often in a position of being unhappy when we think there should be more consultation with stakeholders and when in fact what the government delivers us is less. It is a common dilemma across a whole range of government portfolios.

This particular bill refers to the Capital City Committee which was set up in 1998. It was originally set up to be a link between state and local government. I think that is important, because the link was never expressed to be between state parliament and the local council as a political body of elected members.

When you look at the composition of the committee, you see that the state representatives are all members of the executive. They are all members of parliament as well because that is our Westminster system, but they are on that committee in their capacity as a member of the executive. I think there are practical as well as legal problems with having someone from outside the executive on that committee. Those problems are exacerbated where the person is a non-government member of parliament.

Just to give one example, when you look at the legislation—the City of Adelaide Act—you see that the work of the committee is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. I think that that is probably appropriate in that it provides some level of protection for the discussions and negotiations on that committee. However, if you had a non-government member on that committee, it would effectively open up all of the committee's deliberations to public scrutiny. That is just the nature of politics. So, I can see that it would be a great temptation for a member of the seat of Adelaide sitting on that committee who was not from the government benches to actually circumvent the Freedom of Information Act in that way.

The other point I would make is that being on this particular committee—the Capital City Committee—is not the only opportunity that the local member of parliament has to engage in the work of the committee. I note that there is a subcommittee system allowed for under the act and there is also a forum which is established by the committee. In looking at the history of this legislation, I went back to the Hansard of 1998 and found this contribution from the Hon. Rob Lucas, as minister. He said:

The Committee is to convene a forum of members of the broader City of Adelaide community and seek the advice of, and share information with this group. The forum will be a means of disseminating information on the factors and issues influencing the development of the city, and will provide an opportunity for major stakeholders in the city, such as the universities and peak bodies representing property, retail, employer and community interests, to consider the policies and strategies for the development of the city, as well as proposals of individuals and agencies.

I note, in that quote, that he did not refer to the current local member. Clearly, the current local member is one of the stakeholders who could be involved in the forum. I would also point out that while the member for the state seat of Adelaide might believe she has a particular interest, no member of this place needs reminding that we are also all members for the City of Adelaide. In fact, I have taken a great interest in development in the city. I was very disappointed to miss, by only a few minutes, the stoush in the mall over the grandstand, when the Hon. Kevin Foley had a run-in with local residents. I was there but missed it by a few minutes. I have taken a great interest in matters in the City of Adelaide, as have many other members of this place.

The final thing I would say in relation to this bill is that, search as I may, I cannot find any other precedent on the statute books of South Australia where a local member of parliament is guaranteed a seat on a statutory committee by virtue of his or her holding that particular seat. It is not something that we have ever done in this state. Having put all of those things together, what we find is that the Greens cannot support the bill as drafted.

That does not, in any way, diminish the important role the local member of parliament could, and should, play in the future development of a key part of the electorate, but I do not believe that the member's interest is above and beyond those of other members of parliament, indeed it is not above and beyond other key stakeholders. Given that there are opportunities for engagement that do not involve a seat on the committee spelt out in the statute, the Greens will not be supporting this bill.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (17:06): I thank my colleagues the Hon. John Gazzola and the Hon. Mark Parnell for their contributions, and I will make some remarks following those contributions. I noted with interest the Hon. Mr Gazzola's reference to laneway bars. We are actually yet to see a bill in relation to that, and we await that with interest. So, to describe that as being sought, I think, is a bit far-fetched.

In light of the fact that the government attempted to shut down all bars between 4am and 7am last year, it is quite a backflip with a triple pike and comes on the comments about the troika of the Adelaide Club, the Adelaide City Council and the Legislative Council. I am not sure that there are particularly strong linkages there. Indeed, the Adelaide City Council was one of the stakeholders which said, 'We won't shut the bars down between 4 and 7, we will shut them down between 3 and 7.' The Legislative Council was certainly in disagreement with the Adelaide City Council, and what the views are of members of the Adelaide Club, I do not know what relevance that has.

I appreciate the fact that the member recognises that the argument in relation to this bill is to recognise the democratic election of who the elected member for Adelaide is at the time. I do not think there has been any suggestion that the member for Adelaide would have a veto over decisions of that particular committee, and I think that in modern governance practice the more direct lines there are the better.

The Hon. Mr Parnell spoke of the executive members, and I take that point, I think it is a valid one. Unfortunately perhaps, were it not for the manner in which this government operates, with much secrecy and depriving the member for Adelaide information about what is taking place, I do not think her frustration would be quite as acute. It is a situation where constituents expect the member to be at the front line of knowing what is going on in quite a number of areas: festivals, city activations, city safety and projects that take place within the CBD, and they expect her to provide them with feedback.

As the member said, she is the first person people call when they have issues. I think that is a very important point in this argument, and I think she made it very well. I thank honourable members for their comments and look forward to the committee stage of the debate.

The council divided on the second reading:

Majority of 2 for the ayes.

Second reading thus passed.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (17:16): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.