HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-09-08 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (COUNCIL ALLOWANCES) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 July 2009. Page 2922.)

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH (18:23): I think that there are a number of very good aspects to this bill, and the move to the Remuneration Tribunal setting council allowances is a good one. It removes from councillors the invidious choice of deciding between setting a reasonable allowance for themselves and looking at specific programs they will not be able to afford if they do so. I think that is a good thing. Setting allowances every four years makes eminent sense.

One aspect of the bill to which I may move an amendment is new section 76(3)(b), which relates to the criteria for the setting of allowances, that is, taking into account size, population and the revenue of the council and any relevant economic factors when determining council allowances.

We have a system that assumes that a bigger council with a bigger budget and population is intrinsically harder to run and that therefore the councillors should get a higher allowance. I do not think that reflects the reality. Some very small councils have very complex jobs. For example, the District Council of the Copper Coast, about which I know a reasonable amount and of which I have been critical, in many ways has a hard job—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Do you want to pay them more?

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: Maybe. It has quite a difficult job. It has a world heritage area that it wants to list as a world heritage area (the copper mining area of Moonta); it has a coastal zone; it has farmland; and it has the usual residential zoning issues to consider. Like many coastal councils, it is undergoing a development rush, which means that it has to deal with big developers with big budgets and lots of good lawyers. I think its job is more difficult than the job that faced me in my role as a councillor at the Norwood, Payneham and St Peters council, and there are other councils like that.

I do not believe that the narrow range of factors to be taken into account in new section 76(3)(b) are broad enough. I do not think they reflect the inherent complexity of local government. All councils operate under the same act and have the same sorts of powers regardless of the size of the population or the revenue, and I do not think they reflect the wide-ranging circumstances of local government.

My ideal would be to have all councillors paid a fairly similar allowance. However, we do not have the funding mechanism for that at the moment. What we have is a formula that essentially allows larger councils with larger budgets to justify larger allowances for councillors (not exorbitant, because they are quite modest, too), while small councils with less access to expert staff and any support, and often with roles that are just as complicated, can be paid only what their small council can afford. It is not the sort of outcome that we would accept in any other area in society. I think it is quite inequitable.

On the whole, I am very supportive of the bill. I am thinking about how to possibly amend new section 76(3)(b) simply to recognise the fact that it is not size of population or revenue that matters. The intrinsic complexity of local government is just that: it is intrinsic to local government, and it depends on the circumstances of different councils. Those matters are not taken into account in the broad criteria that are set in new section 76(3)(b).

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.


At 18:27 the council adjourned until Wednesday 9 September 2009 at 14:15.


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