HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-05-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (BOUNDARY REFORM) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:32): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Local Government Act 1999. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Members would be well aware that for a long time I have been trying to advance the reform of local government—reform in respect of the question of whether or not we currently have in the metropolitan area the best boundary arrangement for councils and whether they are the most efficient and effective. It has been a long road, because certain people do not want any change at all. I do not have a problem with the argument that we should be reforming ourselves: I think we should. I think any area of government—local, state or federal—should always be open to possible change and improvement.

I am not trying to pick on local government. I used to be in local government many years ago and I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I certainly recommend it to people who want to serve their community. However, the question is: are the current boundaries in the metropolitan area, where we have 19 councils from Gawler to Noarlunga, the most effective and efficient in terms of creating a particular number of councils? I do not have a set view on whether we should have 19, 10, three or one, but I tend to believe that there may be too many at the moment.

The purpose of this bill is to allow a commission of inquiry to be set up, and members can see that the commission of inquiry would be called The Metropolitan Councils Boundaries Reform Commission. It would consist of a former judge of the Supreme Court, appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of the House of Assembly by resolution. The terms of reference of the commission are quite specific. They are that it must:

(a) inquire into and report on the appropriate number and configuration of metropolitan councils taking into account—

(i) the size and area of Metropolitan Adelaide;

(ii) the desirability of the efficient administration of councils; and

(iii) other matters that the Commissioner considers relevant.

The commission is required to report no later than 31 December this year and cause copies of the report to be laid before both houses of parliament, setting out the findings of the commission's inquiry and making such recommendations as the commission thinks fit as to the appropriate number and configuration of metropolitan councils. The commission would have the powers of a royal commission, so it would be able to require people to attend and give evidence.

Importantly (and I am not naive, in terms of knowing that we have an election coming up in March next year, and I appreciate that some members might be sensitive to that fact, in terms of any possible changes to councils), members need to bear in mind that this is an inquiry by a commission headed by a judge that would report by the end of this year. The report would be brought to both houses of parliament and the minister responsible for local government would have to respond by 30 June 2010. So, it takes it past the next election and, whichever party is in government, it would be the minister for local government responding by 30 June 2010.

As the bill says, the minister must respond by that date but include in the response '(a) which (if any) recommendations of the commission will be carried out and the manner in which they will be carried out; and (b) which (if any) recommendations will not be carried out and the reasons for not carrying them out'.

I think the mechanism provided here is a sensible, objective analysis but, at the end of the day, the government and the parliament will have to make a decision about whether or not to accept some or all of the recommendations made. I think this mechanism is the best way of trying to deal with the current situation—and we know some of the controversy: we have people making comments such as the Adelaide City Council is not representative of the metropolitan area, and so on. That issue, along with others, would be canvassed by the commissioner.

There are plenty of arguments for and against amalgamation. I do not need to detail them all, so this is not a complete or list or an exhaustive one, but some of the arguments for amalgamation are that larger well-resourced councils can introduce and financially commit to innovative and comprehensive neighbourhood and area-based partnerships, they have the capacity and the ability to develop and implement the systems and processes necessary to achieve key governance outcomes, and they can utilise economic efficiency gains derived from amalgamation—and so it goes on. There are other arguments for amalgamation.

Some of the arguments against amalgamation are that large bureaucracies are less effective, they inhibit transformation of policy decisions into policy action, and one of the allegations is that decision-making is removed from the community. Larger councils are less accountable and transparent and they are more complex than their smaller counterparts and, thus, less easily monitored by voters. So the arguments go on against amalgamation.

If you look around Australia, you will see that, recently, the Northern Territory has brought about consolidation of many of its councils. Brisbane, as we know, has one council; under the Kennett government in Victoria, councils were forced into amalgamation; and here, during the time of the Brown government, councils were given the opportunity to amalgamate. Many in rural South Australia did exactly that, but not so many in the metropolitan area.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Yes, Enfield and Port Adelaide. In fact, there was active opposition to any consideration of amalgamation. The way things are now, the reality is that, if you ask councils whether they want to amalgamate voluntarily, the answer is fairly predictable. It is unlikely that any council will say, 'Yes, we want to amalgamate.' It could happen, but it is unlikely, because we all know that we tend to look after our own patch. If there were changes at the state level and the federal level, you would get similar sort of arguments: let's keep the status quo; let's not rock the boat.

The LGA is not in a position to bring about possible amalgamations easily. I commend the LGA for trying to get councils to work more cooperatively together. I have acknowledged before that, if you can get councils to cooperate with each other more closely, that is an alternative to amalgamation. Some do it through waste collection, but there is still a long way to go in terms of things like sharing computer resources and other services. Things have happened in terms of councils cooperating together such as joint tendering, but there is still a long way to go.

This commission, headed by an independent person, a retired judge, would be able to hear the arguments from experts and lay people and, importantly, from the community as to whether or not they think it is a good idea to have the status quo in the metropolitan area, fewer councils, right down to the possibility of having one, two, three or four councils to cover the metropolitan area.

This approach that I am proposing through this bill will take the heat out of the issue and allow it to be considered in a calm and rational way. It will get the work underway prior to the election, with the government and the parliament responding to the recommendations of the commission after March 2010.

I believe that any fair consideration of this bill will come to the conclusion that it is the way to deal with this issue rather than rushing in and forcing councils to amalgamate. Let us have a look at the issues for and against and hear the recommendations of the independent commissioner. Then decisions can be made about whether or not we have the situation correct at the moment, whether we need 19 councils between Gawler and Noarlunga and, if not, what the alternatives might be.

It would allow all the groups and individuals who have an interest in this to have a say. I think it would be very healthy in terms of clearing the air, because we are hearing a lot of comments about, for example, the Adelaide City Council, some of which in my view are unfair. It would enable the air to be cleared and, more importantly, allow us to progress this issue of local government reform in a way that is genuinely objective and appropriate.

In conclusion, I reiterate that I am not using this as a mechanism to attack local government. I am a great believer in local government. I think that in many ways local government is not recognised or properly funded in the way that it should be, but that is an issue for another time and another mechanism. This bill is purely about looking at boundary reform for local government. I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT