HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-05-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CITY OF ADELAIDE (CAPITAL CITY COMMITTEE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 May 2012.)

Mrs VLAHOS (Taylor) (10:32): I speak today in opposition to the member for Adelaide's City of Adelaide (Capital City Committee) Amendment Bill. The City of Adelaide Act was passed in 1998, and from its inception the government established the Capital City Committee as a vehicle for the Adelaide City Council and the state government to come together for strategic city issues.

The clear intent of the act is to ensure a collaborative and strategic partnership between the state government and the Adelaide City Council. The intergovernmental partnership is reflected in the way in which the Capital City Committee functions, with equal representation and funding from both the Adelaide City Council and the state government—a just partnership of equal partners and equal stakeholders in our city's future. Adding another member external to either level of government could result in an imbalance in the Capital City Committee and constrain further enhancement of the relationship between the City Council and the state government.

The member for Adelaide suggested that, without the participation of the state member, the local community is not represented or included in the committee's work. This view does not acknowledge the fact that the Adelaide City Council has a mandate to engage with the local community. Indeed, under the current mayor, Stephen Yarwood, the council seems to be striving very hard to listen and represent all the people in the City of Adelaide precincts and the towns surrounding it. They represent not only the people who are residents in the member for Adelaide's area but also business owners, tourists, workers, students and the many other South Australians who love our city just as much as the member for Adelaide does.

The member for Adelaide is not the Queen of Adelaide; she is but one voice representing the people of Adelaide. I am sure that many of the city councillors on the Adelaide City Council feel they humbly represent the people of Adelaide very well, too. Many of us on both sides of the chamber are passionate about our city. Whether it is when we are going about doing our business here on a day-to-day basis or as a shopper, tourist or resident, we feel we are stakeholders in the future of our city, yet we do not presume that we should have a seat at the table, as the member for Adelaide does. The act states that membership of the committee consists of either the Premier or a minister nominated by the Premier and two other ministers nominated by the Premier. The member for Adelaide asserted in her speech that there had never been a time in which the member for Adelaide had not been a member of the committee. This is plainly wrong and deserves to be corrected in the chamber.

It is important to note that when the Capital City Committee was first established by the Liberal government of the day in 1998, the then member for Adelaide, the Hon. Michael Armitage, was not a member of the committee, between 1998 and 2002—roughly four years, four years and no member for Adelaide. As pointed out previously, when Dr Armitage did join the committee it was as a minister, not as the member for Adelaide. The former member for Adelaide, the Hon. Dr Jane Lomax-Smith, was a member of the committee between 2002 and 2010. This was in her capacity as a minister, not as the member for Adelaide.

The city of Adelaide is the capital city of our state and is utilised on a daily basis, not only by those living in the electorate but by around 126,500 workers, 90,000 students and 86,500 visitors from across our state. There are also 29,000 overnight stays recorded in our city over each year, which includes guests from interstate and overseas. The city of Adelaide is for all South Australians, not just for the people who live within the electorate of Adelaide, something the member often forgets in this chamber.

The Capital City Committee has a pivotal role in revitalising the city and to make Adelaide not just one of the world's most liveable and innovative cities but one of the most vibrant cities also. The government has a priority to make this happen, rather than seek opportunities for political and media point scoring, as the member for Adelaide so often does, unsuccessfully, in this chamber.

Members interjecting:

Mrs VLAHOS: It's true, it's very true. I ask members to oppose the amendment for the sake of all South Australians.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon) (10:37): It is remarkable that a member moves a bill in this house in private members time, of which she is the sole beneficiary. I think in times past such bills were referred to as private bills rather than public bills. I find it touching that the member for Adelaide thinks that the seat of Adelaide should always be a seat that is with the government. I do not know by what process of reasoning she reaches that conclusion.

Ms Chapman: You have a City of Adelaide minister in your own government.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The member for Bragg interjects again. Yes, we do have a city of Adelaide minister but that does not mean the member for Adelaide must always be part of the government. It is as if, if the people of Adelaide elect a Liberal there must be, ergo, a Liberal government.

Mr Venning: There should have been.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: 'There should have been,' the member for Schubert interjects. We was robbed. 51 per cent of the vote. All through my childhood, Sir Thomas Playford polled in the low 40s in elections, but nevertheless formed the government with a comfortable majority. So, if, as an accident of the current electoral system, my party was elected with less than 50 per cent of the two-party preferred vote, I am neither embarrassed nor—

Ms CHAPMAN: I rise on a point of order. I bring Madam Speaker's attention to the content of what is now being presented, which it seems to me—

An honourable member interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Sir Thomas Playford, yes, he is here in this very room, his picture is up there. The reality is that this is nothing to do with this bill.

The SPEAKER: The point of order is relevance, I presume, member for Bragg?

Ms CHAPMAN: Absolutely, and quite insulting, I think, to the member for Adelaide, reflecting on her bona fides of bringing this important bill.

The SPEAKER: Thank you. You will have the opportunity to speak, if you wish, but we do not need that in your point of order. Member for Croydon, I direct you back to the substance of the bill.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: If we follow the member for Adelaide's reasoning, that the member for the state district of Adelaide should be on the Capital City Committee, presumably the member for the federal division of Adelaide should also be on the Capital City Committee. When the redistribution comes down later this month, who knows what will happen? Perhaps North Adelaide will become the easternmost point of the District of Croydon and then I shall have to be on the Capital City Committee. The bill is a nonsense.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Griffiths.

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