House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-11-09 Daily Xml

Contents

LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEETINGS

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon) (15:52): I continue my remarks on local government that I started in the grievance debate on 28 October. I asked what role Mr John Hanlon of the Office for State/Local Government Relations had in formulating the terms of reference of Mr Ken MacPherson's report into the Burnside council and what communication did he have with Mr MacPherson and his staff during the inquiry. Does the Burnside report dwell on the process of appointment of the chief executive officer of Burnside council? I think even Mr Hanlon would concede that he had a preferred candidate for that post.

The public might well reach the conclusion, when the Burnside council report is released, that the authors have laboured mightily to bring forth a mouse. It seems to me that the trouble at Burnside is that the voters of Burnside in 2006 elected a different majority and that some of the minority refused to accept the result. Whether or not that is so, the residents and ratepayers of Burnside are not sufficiently interested in the affairs of the council to cast a vote. At the 2003 election, 30.3 per cent of them voted.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: At the 2006 election, 33.3 per cent of eligible Burnside voters voted, and at this election, as of last night, Monday, at the close of business, 19.15 per cent had voted. The member for Bragg says that it is not over yet, but if you can get that turnout figure above the last two elections, you are like Bernborough's jockey. Arguably, the council of 2010 is going to have an inferior mandate to the councils of 2003 and 2006.

In my own city, Charles Sturt, 27.9 per cent voted at the 2006 election, and at this election the proportion of returned ballots is 23.63. The St Clair residents' action group would have us believe that the Charles Sturt council's land swap at St Clair and the development of the Cheltenham racecourse for housing are the principal issues in this election. If that is so, why is the turnout in Charles Sturt down, and why is the turnout in Woodville ward—ground zero, you might say—still below the 2006 turnout?

I would like to ask those indefatigable letter to the editor writers—Carol Faulkner, Ray Hill and Nora Fahey—why in 2006 did the voters of the Woodville ward give 1,054 votes to the supporter of the housing development at Cheltenham racecourse, Councillor Brian Freak, and only 724 votes to the opponent, Councillor Bob Grant? Wouldn't the St Clair and Cheltenham residents associations (or so called residents associations) have egg on their faces if one of their two candidates for the Woodville ward in this election were defeated by Ms Oanh Nguyen, who may become only the second Vietnamese Australian to serve in local government in South Australia?

Turning my attention to Adelaide, I noticed that in the 2003 election in the City of Adelaide 8,070 eligible voters out of a total of 19,740 recorded a vote—that is, a 40.9 per cent turnout—but I notice that, in this election, as of Monday night, of 23,236 eligible voters only 4,411 had returned a ballot—that is 18.98 per cent.

I think we have to say that the Corporation of the City of Adelaide is the rotten borough of South Australian local government politics. I would say there would have had to have been a media story in the Tiser alone for every one of those voters. The coverage which has gone into this council in which there is so little voter interest is quite disproportionate.

I must say that it should be on the agenda of this government to do root and branch reform of the Adelaide City Council, whereby workers and students in the city can cast a vote. The capital city council is too important to be left to the tender mercies of 4,411 voters, most of them from the suburb of North Adelaide.