Standing Committee on Public Administration and Finance
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE INQUIRY INTO THE TRANSFER OF MANAGEMENT OF FREMANTLE CEMETERY TO THE METROPOLITAN CEMETERIES BOARD TRANSCRIPT OF EVIDENCE TAKEN AT PERTH MONDAY, 3 NOVEMBER 2003 FIRST SESSION Members Hon Barry House (Chairman Hon Ed Dermer (Deputy Chairman) Hon Murray Criddle Hon John Fischer (Substituted by Hon Simon O’Brien) Hon Dee Margetts Hon Ken Travers Hon Sue Ellery Public Administration and Finance First Session Monday, 3 November 2003 Page 1 Committee met at 9.40 am FARDON, MR RALPH Consultant, examined: Mr Fardon: Good morning again. Hon SUE ELLERY: Good morning again to you too. I have to say some formal words, so please bear with me while I do that. Welcome on behalf of the committee to the meeting today. You know that we are sitting as a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Public Administration and Finance. As a subcommittee, we are a much smaller unit than you would expect to see if you were appearing before the full committee. Could you please state the capacity in which you appear before the committee? Mr Fardon: I appear this morning in a personal capacity. I am a consultant, or perhaps more correctly a retired consultant. As a past member of the Fremantle Cemetery Board and a past chairman of the board, I have some close interest in the Fremantle area and the Fremantle Cemetery. Hon SUE ELLERY: You have signed a document entitled “Information for Witnesses”. Have you read and understood that document? Mr Fardon: I have indeed. Hon SUE ELLERY: These proceedings are being recorded by Hansard. A transcript of your evidence will be provided to you. To assist the committee and Hansard, please quote the full title of any document you refer to during the course of this hearing for the record. Please be aware of the microphones in front of you, try to talk into them and ensure that you do not cover them with any paper or make any noise near them. I remind you that your transcript will become a matter for the public record. If for some reason you wish to make a confidential statement during today’s proceedings, you should request that evidence be taken in closed session and if the committee grants your request, any public or media in attention will be excluded from the hearing. Please also note that until such time as the transcript of your public evidence is finalised, it should not be made public. I advise you that premature publication or disclosure of public evidence may constitute a contempt of Parliament and may mean that material published or disclosed is not subject to parliamentary privilege. That is the formal bit. I met you outside the hearing room and I know that you know Simon O’Brien. Just so that you understand the arrangements, I am a member of the Standing Committee on Public Administration and Finance and my colleague Hon Simon O’Brien has been substituted into the committee for the purpose of this inquiry. We have received your submission, Mr Fardon. Would you like to make any opening remarks prior to taking questions from either Simon or me? Mr Fardon: Yes. I noted that I am permitted up to 10 minutes to make my remarks. I contemplated for some time whether I wanted to do that. I have copies with me of what I wish to say and I decided that I ought to do something about it yesterday afternoon, so I sat down and prepared a statement that I would like to present. I will read it, but I may seek to enlarge on it a fraction if I deem it necessary as I go along. Hon SUE ELLERY: Absolutely. Mr Fardon: If I enlarge, it quite obviously will not be included in the written document. May I commence? Public Administration and Finance First Session Monday, 3 November 2003 Page 2 Hon SUE ELLERY: Please do. Mr Fardon: This personal submission has been motivated by the invitation of the committee to make known concerns relative to the decision of the Western Australian Government to transfer the long-standing management of the Fremantle Cemetery to the Metropolitan Cemeteries Board. In the decision, a monopoly management of cemetery facilities within the greater metropolitan area of Perth has been created. Such a situation has been deplored by the Government in other areas of community service, with wider community involvement in the conduct of local affairs at the regional level being championed first by the Premier, then by the Treasurer and the Minister for Community Development. This begs the question as to why this decision has been taken. I believe the reasons given are both inadequate and based on a false premise. It has been stated that by economy of scale a sum of $600 000 per annum will be saved and made available to ensure that cemetery fees are fairly distributed throughout the metropolitan area. Since several requests to the Treasurer and the Minister for Local Government for an itemisation of the projected savings have not met with any success, it must be assumed that the Government is not prepared to submit the task force report to a form of due diligence. I believe such a check to be essential since such savings of $600 000 are beyond my present acceptance. On an expenditure pattern of something like two and a half million dollars, the Fremantle Cemetery could not possibly, in my view, provide a $600 000 saving in any one year, when you think about the types of services that are rendered. By his own statement the Minister for Local Government in the Legislative Council - the submission should read “Council”, not “Legislative Assembly”, I beg your pardon - on 17 September 2003 described the savings as “not big bickies” and “tiny”. This is a classic case of the close relationship of the community with the Fremantle Cemetery Board over more than 100 years being abrogated in order to bring unsubstantiated savings to Big Brother, the Metropolitan Cemeteries Board. It is another instance of biggest not being the best. If the cemetery fees payable within the metropolitan area are going to be lowered by the created monopoly, it would have happened years ago. Why has the Minister found it necessary to give an assurance in a media release that the fees at Fremantle will not be raised for a period of two years? The levels of cemetery fees in Western Australia are generally lower than those in other States of the nation. A further reason given is to permit the better coordination and planning for future growth. The Fremantle Cemetery Board has not stifled this coordination in the past because since 1987 the MCB has had management of every cemetery in Perth except the Fremantle Cemetery Board. There is no evidence that the MCB has been restricted in its planning for growth, since the MCB domain has bypassed the Fremantle area by control at the Baldivis future cemetery and an arrangement with the City of Rockingham concerning the east Rockingham cemetery. There has been no obstruction by the Fremantle Cemetery Board to the planning process, only offers to be involved in shared services and support pleas that have been made by the Metropolitan Cemeteries Board to the previous and current State Governments for additional free land at MCB facilities, the MCB having been informed that it will lose areas of a number of its cemeteries to the Bushplan and Bush Forever projects. If the Government is genuine about coordination and planning for cemeteries throughout the State, it would have endorsed the recommendation of the Fremantle Cemetery Board to establish two regional authorities having similar powers and the task of assisting other than metropolitan area cemeteries with advice and support, which assistance is sorely needed. The appropriate boundary for the two regional bodies is the Swan River; in other words, a northern region and a southern region. The potential to reduce debt levels at Fremantle Cemetery Board will be only to the detriment of interest payable to the State Treasury and interest to be derived by the Metropolitan Cemeteries Board from the investment of surplus funds. [9.50 am] Public Administration and Finance First Session Monday, 3 November 2003 Page 3 The Fremantle Cemetery Board has shown its capacity to meet all due payments for loans to provide world-class facilities for the future, and its loan-to-income ratio will reduce as the number of funerals rises, as it is predicted to do. The ratio experienced by the Fremantle Cemetery Board - that is, loan indebtedness to income - is no larger than that of many smaller local governments throughout the State. I personally believe that cemeteries are more akin to a local government exercise than to a state agency. They have community and personal contact with the population and I see them more closely aligned to a local government body than a government agency or department. My submission endeavours to address the terms of reference set by the Legislative Council. I have not followed them in total sequence, but I believe that everything I have said in the submission has accurate relationship to the terms of reference of the committee. I trust that the standing committee has the opportunity to view the report of the machinery of government assessment, which was carried out some two and a half years ago, together with the Fremantle Cemetery Board’s submission to that assessment. It is noteworthy that at that time the Government elected not to wipe out the Fremantle Cemetery Board’s governance. Consultation with the Fremantle Cemetery Board and the adjacent local governments by the Functional Review Taskforce was completely overlooked.