HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-11-20 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

City of Adelaide (Capital City Committee) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 July 2014.)

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (17:07): I just want to say a few words about this matter. In a way I understand why this has been put up by the member for Adelaide. At a fairly sort of superficial level it seems a reasonable proposition but, in fact, I do not believe it is and I will explain why.

At the recent council election, the candidates for Lord Mayor—the two really seriously contending candidates for Lord Mayor—got two and a bit thousand votes, and after the distribution of preferences we have a new Lord Mayor, and I wish him well. I have to say I have had a brief conversation with him because I thought it was appropriate to sit down and have a chat. I am quietly optimistic that, so far as he is concerned, there will be a good, progressive and engaged relationship, and I look forward to that and I hope my anticipation of that turns out to be correct.

Getting back to the main point, the fact is that it depends on how you characterise the city of Adelaide. I characterise the city of Adelaide as the capital of South Australia. What happens in our capital city is of relevance to everybody in South Australia.

We have 1.5 million people or thereabouts; 1.2 million or thereabouts reside somewhere around the metropolitan area, and obviously the centre of the metropolitan area is the area within the Parklands; that contains most of the commercial centres, the cultural centres and all those other things. Those are assets for all South Australians. They are things that all of us as South Australians are entitled to feel belong to us and are part of our collective heritage.

Consider this: each person sitting in this room has roughly 22,000 people who are electors who have made a decision that you, whoever you might be, are to be the person who will represent them in the parliament for four years. Every person in this room has had 22,000 voters, not to mention how many people in their electorates are not voters because they are too young or they are not citizens or whatever they might be. Each person in this room has 30,000-odd people or whatever they stand here to represent.

I come back to the point—and no disrespect to the candidates—that the highest single vote for a councillor in the Adelaide City Council was 1,500 or 1,600, something like that, and then there were 900 and something else. So, the basic proposition that comes from that is the council is an elected body, which is elected on a relatively narrow base. It is given an opportunity to interact with the state government that represents everybody through the City of Adelaide Act. One might argue as to whether or not it interacts well—that is a different topic—and that may change from time to time depending on who the personalities on the committee are. That is the purpose of it.

The important thing to understand is the state is on that committee representing everybody in South Australia, not representing anybody in particular. For example, why are the residents of Tanunda any less relevant in having their opinions known about what should happen to the City of Adelaide than the residents of Quorn or the residents of Mount Gambier or the residents of Kadina? Why are they less relevant? The answer, of course, is that they are not less relevant, which then brings me to the other question: why is it that the member for Adelaide's residents are so important? Why are they so important that they get on there twice?

They get on there once because the City Council has been elected by them, those of them who choose to vote, and they then have no other member of parliament representing the other 1.5 million people in the state. The member for Goyder does not get there to talk about what people in Kadina think of what they are doing in here. He misses out. However, the member for Adelaide, whoever that person might be from time to time, gets a seat at that table, and that is a little bit like any member of this room expecting to be seated at the table of the G20 because it is in Brisbane and we are the city councillor for Brisbane.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, that followed, didn't it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It just does not add up. It does not make sense. That is the first point, and that is actually the main point about this. This is really about the state government of the day, whoever that might be, interacting with the council of the day, whoever that might be. No individual member of this chamber has any more relevance being at that table than anybody else, including the member for Adelaide. Leave aside what might happen if the Redistribution Committee decided, heaven forbid, to separate North Adelaide from Adelaide. Which one is going to go in then? Who is going to go in then? Or if you separated lower North Adelaide from upper North Adelaide and drew a line down Grote Street, my goodness, you would have five of them in there. Do they fight it out to see which one gets in?

In order partially to avoid that terrible possibility of five so-called members for Adelaide under the definitions here having to fight it out for who gets a seat at the table—and that would be very unseemly—and partly because the member for Adelaide, whoever she or he might be, has no greater reason to be there than anyone else in this room—

Mr Knoll: Except that her constituents are within the seat of Adelaide.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The member for Schubert points out the constituents are in the seat of Adelaide, and I make the point that your constituents, member for Schubert, are just as entitled to have a view about what goes on in Adelaide as mine are, as are the member for Goyder's and, yes, even the member—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Schubert is warned.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —for Bragg's people are entitled to have a view about what goes on in the city. I am surprised that she has been left out, quite frankly.

Ms Chapman: I have a little slice of the Parklands in Bragg.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The member for Bragg has a small slice of the Parklands and yet is being ignored by the member for Adelaide. There is an example. I was not aware the example was already there, and it is there. The chopping up of the city has begun. This is worse than I thought. I anticipated it was possible; I was not aware it had already begun. The other point I would make, and I say this with some degree of earnestness, is this: in the fullness of time, perhaps when the member for Schubert is 20 or 30 years older, those who sit on that side of the chamber presently will be sitting on this side of the chamber.

The Hon. S.W. Key: No.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It could happen. Were that to happen, one thing they should ponder carefully is, if amongst their ranks there happens to be the member for Adelaide of the day, and if that member for Adelaide happens to be, by reason of something like this bill, on that Capital City Committee, look out.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member for Schubert and the member for Hammond.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is the case that members for the seat of Adelaide, of whatever party, over time have felt particular pressures peculiar to the City of Adelaide—when I say 'the city' I mean the city in its small sense, not the city in the metropolitan sense—which makes things very, very difficult for them from time to time.

Ms Chapman: Yes, like opening up roads.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Name one! Don't use the 'B' word.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I would invite members of the opposition, in the event that this bill is defeated, to consider themselves fortunate as having had a near-death experience at some point in the future.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:17): I rise to support the member for Adelaide's bill in which she seeks to be represented in respect of the decisions made by the Capital City Committee. This structure has existed for some time. In fact, the Deputy Premier, Premier, Deputy Lord Mayor and Lord Mayor all sit on it. I am not even sure what they do. I read their annual report every year. I think they meet every three months, sit around a table, chit-chat about what they think would be good for Adelaide and spend a bit of money. They have a couple of staff, I think.

Frankly, I read the report every year and it does not tell us that they have actually advanced anything, but I suppose at least there is the chance to say, 'Are you going to the Christmas Pageant?' or, 'What are you doing for the day?' I do not know, but I can tell you that the action statement in relation to this document is pretty thin. Nevertheless, I think it is important that levels of government do meet. It is just unfortunate that it does not seem to be terribly productive.

When the former member for Adelaide was the member for Adelaide, the Hon. Jane Lomax-Smith, and a member of the cabinet under the Rann government, she of course fought very hard to have specific, special representation. In fact, she was appointed the minister for the City of Adelaide. That is far more important than actually being on this committee that sits around and drinks cups of tea when it meets. She was appointed the minister by this government.

In the circumstance where there is special recognition of Adelaide as the capital city and as the cultural and commercial centre of South Australia, the government did just that. It gave special recognition to the local member of parliament. All the current member for Adelaide is asking for is the opportunity to be represented in some form, and at that table would be appropriate. I think it is rather churlish of the government to suggest, 'Why should the member for Adelaide be there and have something different from the others?'

Of course, the Attorney-General speaks as though uniqueness is something to be shunned and that everyone has to have the same. I did wonder, then, why Kangaroo Island, as an iconic part of South Australia and also very important for South Australians and the tourism and agricultural industries etc., should have a commissioner as some great advocate in the cabinet on behalf of that region and no-one else in South Australia should have one or is eligible to have one or has been given any provision to have one.

There are aspects of this state and areas and regions that do have a uniqueness and are significant and are afforded some special attention. This government has demonstrated that by its own provision of special arrangements, so I think it is rather churlish that they should deny the member for Adelaide having an opportunity when she is ready and willing to advocate for her region and for the capital city of Adelaide and is in a unique position, interacting with people within her electorate on a daily basis, to be able to make that contribution.

I commend the bill and ask that at least the Independent members in this house give due recognition to it and appreciate the importance of it. I would also like to congratulate the new Lord Mayor who will take his position and, I think, the new deputy. I am not sure whether that has actually changed in the elections, but, if it has not, then they will of course become members of the Adelaide capital committee as well, and I hope they can make a productive contribution.

Obviously the Premier must be deeply disappointed that his publicly-nominated candidate failed in the election as lord mayor, so he will have to weep over the loss of Mr Yarwood. Nevertheless, we have every confidence that Mr Haese will make a very significant and positive contribution. I do agree with the Attorney on that aspect, that he is to be congratulated and commended, and we should all endeavour to work with his new council for the interests of all those who either live, work or play in the City of Adelaide. With that contribution, I support the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Gardner.

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