Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Tuesday, 17 November 2015
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Tuesday, 17 November 2015] p8318b-8375a Mrs Michelle Roberts; Mr Bill Johnston; Mr Paul Papalia; Mr Peter Tinley; Ms Janine Freeman; Mr Tony Simpson; Mr David Templeman; Mr Ben Wyatt; Mr Rob Johnson; Mr Chris Tallentire; Acting Speaker CITY OF PERTH BILL 2015 Second Reading Resumed from 15 October. MRS M.H. ROBERTS (Midland) [3.16 pm]: I rise to speak on the City of Perth Bill 2015. I do so with some disappointment about the way the government has mismanaged this legislation and, more broadly, how it has mismanaged local government in this state. Few bills could illustrate more fully what a dysfunctional and shambolic government we have. Looking at the portfolio area of local government over the term of the Barnett government, it is completely shambolic. It has been botched like no other portfolio. Of course there is quite a bit of competition when it comes to the mismanagement of portfolios, but this government has been a disappointment in the local government sector. We saw at first the government’s very flawed so-called amalgamation process. For years there was the nonsense of the Premier saying that there would be no forced amalgamations yet at the same time the Minister for Local Government and others were putting the case for amalgamations. There was a stage when some local government authorities constructively looked at how they might amalgamate should they need to, how they could fit with the overall aims of the government so that perhaps rather than find themselves in a situation of forced amalgamation, they could choose how they might amalgamate with neighbouring authorities. I will deal with the shambles in the eastern region. The Town of Bassendean, for example, looked at a possible amalgamation with the City of Swan. At one point that looked like a potential amalgamation, and I am aware there were others. But along came the government with its own shambolic process. As part of that, it said that Mundaring would have to amalgamate with Swan and that Bassendean would have to amalgamate with Bayswater and so forth and so on. Enormous expenditure was used because of what the government said would happen. Towards the end of that process, we found out that it would happen everywhere pretty much, bar the western suburbs represented by the Premier. This went on for another year or two or three. There was a huge hiatus in local government. An enormous amount of money was wasted by just about every council in the state, but particularly in metropolitan councils as they investigated what this would mean. I can only assume that the government got some really bad polling on it and as a result suddenly decided to back off altogether. The government walked away from it entirely. Ratepayers’ money had seemingly been responsibly spent by various councils because of what the government had put out there and said it was going to do, and suddenly it pulled the rug out on that as well. Therefore, when I say that it has been handled in a shambolic fashion, I do not say that lightly. I say that because that is exactly what has happened. Local government has been in some weird kind of no-man’s-land for years now. That is mainly because of the actions of the Premier. I do not blame the Minister for Local Government for this shambles. The blame lies fairly and squarely with the Premier. I believe that the Minister for Local Government and his department have tried quite earnestly to work through a process. They thought they had the support of the Premier and also of cabinet for that process. However, every so often, the Premier would enter the fray and make some public pronouncement and say black is white and white is black, or now we are going to have pink. It made no sense at all. Potentially, the Premier would have been better off if he had tried to get along with his own local shires. It seems to me that the real failure in this process is that the Premier and this government did not try to deal with the small local government authorities in the western suburbs. That matter has still not been dealt with effectively. The big anomaly that we have had for many years is the proliferation of small local government authorities in the metropolitan area, largely in the electorates of Cottesloe and Nedlands. I think most people have said all along that until the Premier can get his own house in order in his own electorates in the western suburbs, he should not try to tell everybody else what to do. Local government in this state has generally thrived. However, that is despite this government, not because of it. I want to take this opportunity to highlight the shocking irony that we had last week when our constituents got their land tax assessment notices. The Premier went into the community and said, “I think local governments should cap their rates. It’s not fair. Some of them are putting up their rates by too much each year.” Although I agree with that sentiment in part, local governments provide a service for their ratepayers. At least people are getting their bins emptied, footpaths and roads constructed, and lighting put in. No doubt people would like to get more services, and no doubt they would like their rates to be lower, but at least they are getting some services for the rates that they pay. I acknowledge that there has been pressure on local governments because of the imposts that have been forced upon them by the state government. We all know that the cost of water, gas and electricity—all things that are used by local governments—has all gone up dramatically under this government. On top of that, there was the needless expenditure by this government on its botched amalgamation process. That process has been botched right from the top by the Premier of this state. The Premier is critical of local governments and wants to be able to restrict the percentage by which they can put up their rates each year. On the face of it, that is a good thing. However, what the Premier is recommending is a very flat instrument. Some [1] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Tuesday, 17 November 2015] p8318b-8375a Mrs Michelle Roberts; Mr Bill Johnston; Mr Paul Papalia; Mr Peter Tinley; Ms Janine Freeman; Mr Tony Simpson; Mr David Templeman; Mr Ben Wyatt; Mr Rob Johnson; Mr Chris Tallentire; Acting Speaker local governments have managed to keep their rates down and are charging a much lesser rate in the dollar than is the case in other local governments. Those councils should not be penalised. The big hypocrisy is that the Premier is presiding over a government under which land tax has gone up dramatically. People have come into my office with land tax bills that have gone up by 50 per cent. In fact, some of those people have a note on their land tax assessment notice that says that the rate is capped at 50 per cent for this year. However, as I have pointed out to them, that means that until they get to the highest point from their combination of revaluation and percentage increase from the government, their land tax bill will go up again next year. We are not talking about increases in land tax of five, six, eight or 10 per cent. We are talking about massive increases in land tax. I know that land tax is not the topic of the City of Perth Bill that is under discussion. However, I could not let the opportunity pass without drawing members’ attention to this issue. A lot of people in local government read the debates that take place in this house. I know that people in the City of Perth will read the discussion about this bill. The member for Victoria Park has outlined, as shadow Treasurer, the extent of the increases in land tax. He has pointed out that the Barnett government has form when it comes to land tax. This is not the first time that there have been massive land tax increases under this government. It is not just a matter of people’s properties being revalued. It is a straight tax increase from the Barnett government. Of course a revaluation will increase the amount of land tax that people have to pay. Even if the land tax rate was kept static, the government would still get a windfall in revenue from land tax because, as we know, property values tend to go up. I am aware of instances in the City of Swan in which a person’s property has been rezoned from rural to industrial, or light industrial, and, as a consequence, when the Office of the Valuer-General does its revaluation, the gross rental value of the property is increased, and that means that people have to pay much more by way of land tax even without any increase by the government in the rate of land tax. The final point I want to make is about the services that people get in exchange for paying land tax. People get precisely zip—nothing—from paying land tax. It is just a tax. It is just an impost on people who own property. If people own more than one property, they are charged a higher rate in the dollar for land tax. Therefore, the more property people own, the more land tax they pay.