Metropolitan LocalGovernment The Future of the of City the of Future The Local Government Reform The Future of the City of Canning of City the of Future The Local Government Reform Review -Submission

Local GovernmentLocal Government Reform Reform

CITY OF CANNING METROPOLITAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW – SUBMISSION

OVERVIEW The City of Canning is a well-established and well-resourced local government that continues to effectively provide a full range of local government services that are both expected and appreciated by its community. The Department of Local Government Local Government Reform Steering Committee Report - May 20101 assessed Canning as having a “Category 1” capability which was defined as being “demonstrative of organisational and financial capacity to meet current and future community needs”.2 It also asserted that the City was “not targeted in the Minister’s current Reform Agenda”.3 The City has never sought, of its own initiative, to amalgamate with a neighbouring local government nor to enlarge its territory by means of acquiring parts of its neighbours. In the past there have been formal attempts from a group of citizens outside Canning to be included in the City by way of a suggested boundary amendment4 and, conversely, a group of Canning residents have opposed being included in a neighbouring local government5. Both were unsuccessful. The City accepts most of the findings of the Review Panel and supports WALGA’s recommendation that the number of metropolitan local governments be reduced from 30 to between 15 and 20. This is commensurate with reductions recommended in previous reviews made between 1954 and 2006 which predominantly ranged from 17 to 22, and the results of a recently-held ballot of 19 “G20” Mayors who preferred ( in order) 16, 18 and15. This submission puts the case for Canning to remain with its present boundaries if the resultant number is in the 15-20 range. Should the Government enforce a lower number the City would, in the first instance, prefer an amalgamation with the whole of the City of South and the rather than the exchange of parts of neighbouring councils. The result of consultation with Canning’s community supports that position. On a preferential ranking basis an almost equal majority of respondents favour Canning remaining “as is” or amalgamating with South Perth and Victoria Park. We acknowledge this does not reflect the preference of South Perth and Victoria Park. The City recommends any adjustment of boundaries to follow more identifiable natural features or built infrastructure such as rivers, highways and railways could follow as a subsequent stage in the rationalisation process and the City will be receptive to discuss these with the Minister and neighbouring councils in that event. However should the government require boundary alterations in conjunction with amalgamations, the City is willing to consider proposals that would not compromise the viability of the new local government.

1 Local Government Reform Steering Committee Report - May 2010 – DeptLG – Map (Page 23) 2 ibid – Page 21 3 Ibid - Table (Page 28) 4 Canning Vale residents of (2000) 5 application to acquire part Rossmoyne (1988) 1

CITY OF CANNING RESPONSE TO REVIEW PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The City endorses the position of WALGA on recommendations 1-7 and 10- 30.

2. The City of Canning does not support recommendations 8 and 9. While acknowledging that on occasions the Lord Mayor of the speaks for a larger area than the Perth CBD, there is already the ability to create a suitable forum for that purpose within the existing WALGA structure. The choice whether to establish this forum should be at the discretion of WALGA.

3. The City of Canning supports the retention of the 2 optional methods of electing the Mayor.

4. The City of Canning’s preference is for its existing name and boundaries to be retained.

5. The City of Canning has considered a number of amalgamation options and submits that if the Government enforces a reduction in metropolitan local authorities to a number between 16 and 20 then each of those options ought to retain Canning in its present configuration.

6. Should the number of local governments be reduced to 12 or less, the City of Canning has a strong preference for:  amalgamations of entire local governments as opposed to the Option 12B recommendation of the Review Panel; and  an amalgamation of Canning with South Perth and Victoria Park (including Burswood).

7. Should the Government enforce an option that amalgamates Victoria Park with Canning, the legislation should include a provision that Victoria Park’s share of the interest it holds in the Tamala Park property located at Mindarie (together with Perth, Cambridge, Vincent, Stirling, and Wanneroo) is transferred to the newly constituted local government .

8. The City of Canning considers it essential that the Burswood Peninsula remain with the former Town of Victoria Park in any proposal to amalgamate that district into a new local government.

2

OPTIONS ANALYSED

The City of Canning considered a variety of different boundary configurations and ultimately elected to present 2 proposals (Options C and D) for consideration by the Canning community as alternatives to the Review Panel suggestions (Options A and B), as well as the existing situation (Option E). Option A (Review Panel Option 12A)

Option B (Review Panel Option 12B)

3

Option C (Canning)

Option D (Canning)

4

Option E (Existing)

ANALYSIS OF THE OPTIONS

A comparative analysis of the options was made on the following criteria:

 POPULATION - Current and projected  REPRESENTATION – Electors/elected member ratios, current & projected  ECONOMIC (RATES) IMPACT ON CANNING.

5

Population

The City considers a viable local government in Perth, not including the CBD, to:  have a minimum population of 35,000;  ideally have an average of 100,000 (2011average of 15 Councils including Perth is 107,500); and  not exceed a population of 150,000 to 170,000. The minimum figure of 35,000 is an arbitrary number that recognises that the resident population is not – as mentioned in the 2006 LGAB Report - an exclusive criteria or measure of size6. The daily visiting population is possibly as relevant, if not more relevant, to a local government, particularly in the use or demand for local government services. The 100,000 average is derived from an assumption that the preference is for metropolitan Perth to be reduced to 16 local governments. The City submits that there is a size limit beyond which the potential for local government to lose its distinctiveness increases in terms of representation and service delivery. In 2004, 16 of 43 metropolitan councils in NSW had populations over 120,000, with an average of 98,420; 15 of 31 councils in Victoria were over 120,000 with an average of 116,150, and the largest local governments in NSW, Victoria and South Australia were 278,532, 174,426 and 153,496, respectively. At that time the ’s population was listed at 181,079. A maximum population target in the range of 150,000 – 170,000 appears, at face value, to be a reasonable and practical criterion.

OPTION A B C D E 2011 pop. 192,000 132,000 131,000 159,000 86,000 2031 pop. 235,000 158,000- 159,000- 192,000- 102,000- 260,000 169,000 169,000 203,000 109,000

Representation

The City currently has 10 councillors and an elector mayor. It compared the electors/elected members ratio for each of the options for both the 2011 and 2031 elector populations, based on the assumption that the new local government would have the maximum number of elected members (15) presently permitted under the Local Government Act 1995. Option A projects the ratio of electors to elected members to increase from 7250 to 9500; significantly higher than the 2011/2012 City of Stirling ratio of 8500.

OPTION A B C D E Ratio Elected Members -2011 7250 5000 5000 6250 4500 Ratio Elected Members - 2031 9500 6250 6250 7750 5500

6 LGAB Local Government Reform in WA – April 2006 p.48 6

Economic (Rates) Impact on Canning

The City obtained from Landgate the UCV and UV figures for the various parcels making up each of the options. For the areas outside the City boundaries the 2012/13 rates revenue was calculated, or interpolated, using the rating information from the budgets posted on the respective council websites. The assumption was made that the same amount of rates revenue for each of those areas would need to be raised after they were incorporated into the new local government. This, in turn, was converted to a rate-in-the-dollar equivalent and compared against the City of Canning’s 2012/13 rate. Due to Canning’s higher percentage of rates from its Commercial and Industrial areas, compared with its neighbours, each alternative option demonstrated that Canning’s rates would need to increase significantly to yield the same revenue. Rating mix: OPTION A B C D E Commercial/Industrial 34% 37% 36% 38% 47% Residential 63% 61% 61% 59% 51% Miscellaneous & Vacant 3% 2% 3% 3% 2%

Equivalent Rate Increase for Existing Canning: 23.9% 15.6% 28.7% 20.3% N/A

Community Consultation

The City of Canning consulted the community between 25 February and 15 March. The invitations were advertised in the local newspapers and the respondents directed to the City’s website for information about the Review and an opportunity to complete an online survey. The same information was provided by means of displays at the City’s Administration Centre and its 4 libraries. The City presented five options for consideration by the community. Respondents were asked to rank them in order of preference (where 1 was the most, and 5 the least preferred option) and requested to indicate why they chose their most and least preferred options. The preferences were allocated a points score (with 1=5 points, 2=4 points, 3=3 points, 4=2 points and 5=1 points) and then aggregated to provide a total ranking score for each option. 46% of the respondents chose Option E (Existing Canning) as their first option, followed by 23% selecting Option D (Amalgamation of Canning with Victoria Park and South Perth) as their first choice. 943 online and 55 hard copy surveys (and 2 other submissions), totalling 1000 were returned. The map below shows the suburbs, and the number, from where the responses came.

7

LOCATION OF RESPONDENTS – by suburb

8

The majority preferred the City of Canning to remain in its present configuration (Option E). They expressed satisfaction with the services currently provided and believed that the City was currently large enough.

If there were forced amalgamations or boundary changes, the community would most prefer amalgamating with both the entire Town of Victoria Park and the City South Perth Option D. The reasons included the ease of amalgamating whole local governments and the perceived similarity in community of interest.

Options B and C were considered less desirable because of the complications associated with splitting local governments, loss of Canning Vale and the exclusion of particular suburbs in these options.

The least preferred option was amalgamating with the City of Gosnells (Option A). The community felt that there were distinctly different needs, socio–economic areas and communities of interest, between Canning and Gosnells.

OPTIONS RANKING SUMMARY Option Option Option Option Option A B C D E

Respondents’ first priority 108 (11%) 142 (14%) 58 (6%) 231 (23%) 459 (46%)

Ranking after scoring preferences 5 (15%) 3 (18%) 4 (18%) 2 (24%) 1 (25%)

Ranking score 2258 2752 2672 3576 3712

9

Some of the reasons cited for the most and least preferred options are highlighted below.

MOST PREFERRED Option E - Existing City of Canning would remain the same with no changes to boundaries This was the most preferred option by the Canning community with many reasons including: Happy with the City of Canning as it is  Happy with the existing Canning Services & facilities  If it isn’t broke don't fix it  Retention of communities of interest, lifestyle, cultural & social cohesion  Do not see need for changes that would ultimately increase costs  Canning is already too big. Local government should be local not regional

SECOND MOST PREFERRED Option D - Amalgamation of whole of City of Canning with the whole of local governments Town of Victoria Park and If the City was forced to be amalgamated community members preferred this option because: Similar community of interest  This links Canning closer to the city of Perth area and seems more logical  Less Councils, better use of ratepayer funds due to economy of scale and consistency in local laws  Brings together interest groups and populations that fit well together  Good size, suburbs of similar nature

Simple amalgamation  Change needs to happen, simplest change (no bits and pieces), areas more in common  No doubt change is inevitable, so this is the option I would accept besides leaving everything as is  Seems like a logical amalgamation with least amount of disruption.  Vic Park and South Perth are more logically linked already to Canning  Best economy of scale and should be a simple procedure to amalgamate 3 councils  Compact solution. Sensible borders. Desirable locations.  Will improve property values in line with Victoria Park and make Canning feel nearer the city  Amalgamation with highly ranked suburb will increase the value as well as facilities

10

THIRD AND FOURTH PREFERENCES

Option B - Identified in the Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel’s Report as 12B –Preferred Option – City of Canning (less Canning Vale) plus parts of the following local governments: City of South Perth, City of Melville, Town of Victoria Park, , City of Gosnells and Some community members did not like Option B because: Less desirable because of the complexity and diversity boundary changes  Too piecemeal, bit of this, bit of that, end result is just a shuffling of borders  Greatest disruption to Councils & residents in 7 LGAs with no obvious advantage created  Complex amalgamation would be very costly.  It would combine demographically different regions

Loss of Canning Vale Industrial Area:  Cost of amalgamation of lots areas, move of C/Vale into a rural sector increases costs for residents  They are taking Canning Vale out of the City of Canning  However some community members felt that it highlighted similar community of interest:  This plan looks like a natural city with a well flowing boundary. I like the concept of the reform.  If amalgamation is forced, provides best common community of interest. Also least spread out in area  Grouping of communities of interest based on geographical closeness

Some of the of the City were open to the idea of being a part of the City of Melville  I have spoken with other people who are happy with the City of Melville and the street scape is good  As we live in the western part of the City of Canning, it would make sense to go with Melville  Brings together interest groups and populations that fit well together in my opinion Option C- Amalgamation of the whole of existing Town of Victoria Park and City of South Perth and part of the City of Canning and City of Gosnells Exclusion of existing City of Canning suburbs:  Rate increases, size-too big. One option we are not included! (Willetton)  Want to remain within boundary of City of Canning (Willetton)  Suburb in which I reside in will no longer belong to the City of Canning. Loss Canning Vale Industrial Area (Riverton)

Loss of Canning Vale, complexity and cost associated with boundary changes  We lose our premier amenities (Riverton Leisureplex and library) and it fragments too many communities 11

 Loss of identity. Overly complicated amalgamation making the process more expensive.  Loss of Canning Vale Industrial Estate & big impact on Canning rates. LEAST PREFERRED Option A - Identified in the Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel’s Report as 12A – Amalgamation of the whole existing of City of Canning and City of Gosnells Distinctly different community of interest  Least compatibility of suburbs  Don’t want to be part of City of Gosnells very different demographic  Disparity of community interest Distinctly different socio – economic areas and perception of devaluation of property  City of Gosnells lower socioeconomic region, worried about land values decreasing  My property value may drop and may attract the negative perception  Gosnells too southern. Also larger population is low socio – economic Council area would be too big  Too large an area and population for one Council to manage properly.  Sheer size, too unwieldy, too many issues to manage  Bigger is not always best Wilson Ratepayers Association The Wilson Ratepayers Association put forward an alternative option (Option Z). The option is a modification of Option B with a new southern boundary for the City of Canning marginally further south of the to the existing rail alignment. The amalgamated City's boundaries would be defined by the physical restraints of the Kwinana Highway on the West, the Rail line to the South and Roe Highway / Orrong Rd on the East. Under this proposal the City would lose the southern triangular section of Canning Vale and retain the industrial land, in the belief that this will simplify provision of services and add additional industrial land that may assist in limiting any future rate increases.

Guiding principles for boundary changes (Schedule 2.1 5.(2) LG Act) Community of Interest Although quoted as the highest ranking guiding principle in the 2006 LGAB Report7 There is little or no evidence that in metropolitan Perth an existing, less logical, local government boundary actually impacts negatively on such principles as “Community of Interest”, where the property zonings and the services delivered on either side of the boundary are similar. Administratively, apart from delivering location based services, it matters little where a local government’s rateable properties are physically located. The City therefore views any boundary realignment is very much a secondary consideration that is best dealt with as a subsequent stage in the process.

7 Ibid. Table 8, p.39 12