HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-05-31 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (BOUNDARY REFORM) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 April 2012.)

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (11:09): I rise to speak on the bill that has been introduced by the honourable member for Fisher whose intent is to establish a metropolitan councils boundary reform commission to conduct an inquiry to determine the appropriate number and configuration of metropolitan councils here in South Australia.

The bill is, essentially, a reintroduction of a previous bill the member for Fisher introduced in 2010. As I said, the bill seeks to establish a commission to investigate the boundaries of metropolitan councils and to determine the number of councils and their respective boundaries. I note, with interest, that in the past five minutes most members in this place have received their Electoral Commission boundaries report and everybody is eagerly reading through the outcomes of the commissioner's recommendations in the draft report, so I do not think many people are concentrating on this current contribution. Be that as it may, I was pleased to read that, for once, there is no change proposed to the electoral boundaries of Kavel. That is pleasing to note, and we will see how that proceeds.

Back to the other business before the house relating to the bill the member for Fisher has introduced. It is my understanding that the boundaries reform commission would consist of a former judge of the Supreme Court, appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of the House of Assembly. The commission would have the powers of a royal commission and would produce a report to be considered and responded to by the Minister for State/Local Government Relations. The bill proposes that the report of the commission is to be laid before both houses of parliament not later than 30 June 2013 and that the minister must respond to the report by 31 December 2013, detailing which recommendations of the commission will be carried out, and how, and which recommendations would not be carried out and the reasons why.

Just looking at some history on this issue. Prior to this bill there was a bill introduced in 2010, but the member for Fisher had also moved a motion that was, in my opinion, aimed at achieving the same outcome as the bill. Previously, the Liberal opposition resolved not to support that motion. One reason for that was that we do not particularly want to engender, or generate, any unnecessary concern within the local government sector at the prospect of forced amalgamations. It may well stifle debate and consideration concerning voluntary efforts in relation to council amalgamations.

I note recent commentary in the media and other arenas, mayors and other members of the local government sector, if you like, and the debate they have been having over recent days concerning amalgamations and how many metropolitan councils we should or should not have, and so on. In an open democratic society people are allowed to debate whatever issues they see fit, and they are entitled to their own opinion. Another point I want to make is that we need to be mindful that all spheres of government, being federal, state and local government, should be on a continual program, or process, of improvement, and not necessarily just focusing on (in this house) local government issues.

As I said, that continual program, or process, of improvement encompasses all spheres of government. In meeting with mayors and CEOs and talking to the LGA—I like to think that being the shadow minister for state/local government relations I have established a good relationship with local government over the past year or so—I am aware that the local government sector is continuing a program and process of improving the delivery of services.

The Hon. R.B. Such interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I can get some evidence. I invite the member for Fisher to meet with the Local Government Association. I do not know whether he has or not, and he can certainly communicate to the—

The Hon. R.B. Such interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Yes, she was here yesterday listening to the tirade, I think, of the Attorney-General in his contribution on the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Bill, but that is an issue that we can perhaps explore at another time. However, having talked to mayors and CEOs of councils, I know that they are looking to improve their resource sharing and how they deliver a whole range of services. So, in my opinion, local government is looking to improve those areas of their operation.

Having attended the local government general conference and annual general meeting a number of weeks ago, I know that some funding has been provided to smaller rural and regional councils to assist them in the management of their financial affairs. They are looking to get every one of the 68 councils in South Australia on a continual program of improvement in terms of their financial sustainability. I think that was a good initiative that was worked through with the Local Government Association to see those funds going to those smaller rural and regional councils in an effort to improve how they manage their financial affairs. Particularly with today being budget day, we all know how absolutely important it is that the finances, economies and funds are managed efficiently and effectively. In a previous career as a banker, I certainly am aware of how important that is out in the broader community.

I have read a number of reports in relation to amalgamations and proposals to amalgamate, not just historical reports here in South Australia but also in other states. The general feeling or consensus from these studies and the reports produced as a result of these studies is that, if you do not have the support of the community and the local people, forced amalgamations do not work. There is debate in the community now on how successful the amalgamation process that took place back in the 1990s was. I know there is debate that continues in one of the council areas in my electorate, being the Adelaide Hills Council. I get a number of calls from time to time from constituents debating the merits of the amalgamation of the previous four small councils into the Adelaide Hills Council.

Coming from the general conference of the Local Government Association recently, we know that, of their own volition and efforts, an expert panel has been formed within the local government sector to look at a whole range of issues, focused on the role and functions of councils, which will report to the Local Government Association State Executive Committee by November 2013. I cannot see any real reason to duplicate that effort, which the member for Fisher proposes, given the work that the local government sector themselves are undertaking in relation to establishing this expert panel and the reporting of this expert panel. So, unfortunately for the member for Fisher, this side of the house does not support the bill.

Ms THOMPSON (Reynell) (11:19): The member for Fisher has once again called for the establishment of a commission of inquiry to be known as the metropolitan councils boundaries reform commission to inquire into and report on the appropriate number and configuration of metropolitan councils in South Australia. The last time the honourable member introduced this bill to the house he was commended for his tenacity in pursuing this one topic over a number of years. I again acknowledge his efforts to promote public debate on the need to strengthen local government so that it can meet the challenges of the future and for councils to deliver services to their communities efficiently and in a cost-effective manner. Nevertheless, the government does not support this bill. The government considers that there are many more pressing matters for state and local government to focus on at present.

The government continues to be engaged in the most significant range of planning reforms in this state in decades, designed to provide strong, sustainable directions for the future growth and development of Adelaide and the regions. A key component of the planning reforms is the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide. The plan details how and where Adelaide will develop, providing certainty for investment and service provision. The 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide addresses the need to plan now for population growth and change, residential development, economic development and sustainability. The state has engaged with local government to be a strong and strategic partner in this process.

The member for Fisher knows that there is already a significant amount of collaborative activity between councils at the operational level. Effective resource sharing between councils and across the local government sector continues to be a strong focus and is actively encouraged by this government and the Local Government Association, but we need to concentrate on the main agenda: planning for the future of our state and managing growth by setting a long-term plan for metropolitan Adelaide.

This government has decided what our priorities should be at a time when South Australia is preparing for a mining boom that offers unprecedented opportunities for our resource sector but also challenges for our state more widely. This government is determined to focus on seven key priorities: clean, green food as our competitive edge; realising the benefits of the mining boom for all South Australians; growing advanced manufacturing; creating a vibrant city; renewing our neighbourhoods to make them safe and healthy; an affordable place to live; and every chance for every child. These priorities build on the things that have long underpinned our economy—agriculture, mining and manufacturing.

However, good government is about more than the economy: it is about investing in our society's wellbeing. I cannot imagine creating a vibrant city or safe and healthy neighbourhoods without councils. Councils are the sphere of government which is close to the community and, while there may not be unanimous approbation of all councils, some have an excellent record of generating real discussion and real engagement with the government's most important work.

The state government does not support forced amalgamations of councils. If councils wish to amalgamate, the Boundary Adjustment Facilitation Panel has been established under the Local Government Act 1999 to consider local government boundary reform. So, as I stated, the government does not support this bill.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:23): I will close the debate. I am not greatly surprised that neither the government nor the opposition is really committed to reform in the state. In my view, both sides lack the spine to carry out reform.

Local government is important; that is why we need to have it operating efficiently and effectively. I am advocating a review as per the New Zealand process, which has been very successful, which uses a retired judge to hear from all parties. This process ensures that the 'local' is kept in local government, because what they do in the process is create advisory panels that work in conjunction with the elected members and so on.

As members know, we currently have 19 councils in the metropolitan area, or 20 if you include Mount Barker, which is really part of the metropolitan area, duplicating 20 times the number of mayors, CEOs, works depots. I do not think that Walkerville can even afford a works depot, but other councils have them, often within a stone's throw of each other. The consequence of this duplication is enormous costs on ratepayers.

Members will soon be deluged by people complaining about rate rises. I notice that the local council where my electorate sits has announced 6.3 per cent. But wait for some of the other councils—the people who should be answering in terms of why councils have to put up their rates will be the people who do not support council reform.

In South Australia, we are paying a lot more for councils than we need to in terms of duplication of services, duplication of policies, different policies. Whether it is managing traffic or whether it is building regulation, they differ. You ask the people in the private sector trying to deal with councils. The transport department has to negotiate with 20 councils in the metropolitan area. It is ludicrous; it is ridiculous.

I do not know what the correct number should be. That is why I am advocating for an independent judge to investigate, hear submissions and make a decision. Members, do not go crying when ratepayers come to you shortly saying their local council is putting the rates up. Members in here who do not support this motion have to accept responsibility for those increases, in part because they have refused to support reform.

I am not advocating a Brisbane model. That may be the desirable model; I am not advocating it. You only have to look at how Brisbane, with more than double the expenditure of the metropolitan area councils in Adelaide, operates with half the staff and they run the buses as well, and do the planning. They do all those things as well.

I will shortly be releasing some details, because I have a motion on the books. A detailed analysis has been done showing what it costs per ratepayer just to support the administration in these councils. In some councils it runs into the hundreds of dollars per ratepayer to support the administration alone. That is before they do anything.

Councils are important. I used to be in council a long time ago. They are not adequately funded. They should get a share of either GST revenue or income tax revenue, but the government and the opposition do not support that either. On the one hand we have councils that cannot maintain basic infrastructure because they rely on a property tax and parking fines, yet neither major party will agree to local government being funded properly with an ongoing growth tax through GST or income tax.

As part of the problem, neither the government nor the opposition will support consideration of reform. We have been hearing for years this talk that the councils are working together. There are only a few councils that share anything. We have different rubbish bins in Adelaide. We do not even have the same size rubbish bins; we do not even have the same colour for the bins; we do not have the same contract; we have councils with different policies relating to rubbish collection—all of these things. Some councils have after-hours officers keeping an eye on people transgressing; some councils cannot afford it. Some councils have community centres; others do not because they cannot afford it.

We have this ridiculous situation where, because of this plethora of councils in the metropolitan area with nearly 300 elected members, it costs more than Brisbane with its paid members. It costs more than that. You have mayors, generally, on about $67,000, and the Mayor of Adelaide on about $111,000. The City of Adelaide has, I think, 20,000 residents. This is laughable. People interstate and elsewhere shake their head in disbelief, and when I introduce the motion in the future I will produce a table detailing all these anomalies.

Second reading negatived.

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