LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Wednesday, 16 March
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Wednesday, 16 March 1994 ______ The President (The Hon. Max Frederick Willis) took the chair at 2.30 p.m. The President offered the Prayers. PETITIONS Anti-Discrimination (Homosexual Vilification) Legislation Petitions praying that the anti-discrimination (homosexual vilification) legislation be repealed because it censors criticism of homosexuals, received from the Hon. Elaine Nile and Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. Container Deposit Legislation Petition praying that because of the detrimental effect of throw-away packaging on the environment, legislation be introduced imposing a mandatory deposit on all containers sold in New South Wales, received from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. Serious Traffic Offence Penalties Petition praying that the House review the laws relating to road accident fatality or grievous bodily harm and institute severe penalties, received from the Hon. Judith Walker. Abortion Petition praying that because of community support for the continued availability of abortions and a woman's right to choose abortion and the continued availability of counselling services for abortion clinics, the House not support any restriction of existing abortion services, received from the Hon. Ann Symonds. GOVERNOR'S SPEECH: ADDRESS IN REPLY Sixth Day's Debate Debate resumed from 15 March. The Hon. DOROTHY ISAKSEN [2:37]: Since the Governor visited this House on 1 March the Government has announced his re-appointment for a further 12 months. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate His Excellency on his re-appointment and to wish him and Mrs Shirley Sinclair a successful and rewarding 12 months. Without question, they are an extremely hard-working and enthusiastic partnership and give great support to many groups within our community. While some good changes have followed the introduction of the Local Government Act last year, the main issue that confronts the ratepayers of Warringah is the considerable financial loss brought about by the irrational action of the previous Minister for Local Government, Gerry Peacocke, in establishing the new municipality of Pittwater. I support the appeal of the honourable member for Davidson, Andrew Humpherson, himself a former member of Warringah Shire Council. As the honourable member for Davidson pointed out, the Minister indicated on a number of occasions that the residents of Warringah, who did not have a vote on the secession, would not bear any costs as a result of the new council. The Minister also said that the residents of Pittwater had to accept that independence would come at a cost. Recently the mayor of Warringah, the deputy mayor and the general manager met with the Minister for Local Government and Minister for Co-operatives, the Hon. Garry West, to put forward a claim on behalf of the ratepayers of Warringah for recovery of lost revenue caused by the split. By way of background with regard to the secession, on four occasions from 1969 to 1990 the Local Government Boundaries Commission of New South Wales considered the structure of local government on the Manly-Warringah peninsula. On the first occasion the proposal for a separate Pittwater council was rejected, largely on financial grounds. On both the first and second occasions the commission recommended that Manly should be amalgamated into Warringah to achieve greater economies of scale and provide more effective and efficient local government for the peninsula. The Hon. Franca Arena: It would have been a good idea. The Hon. DOROTHY ISAKSEN: A very good idea. On the third occasion the Boundaries Commission rejected a proposal to create a separate Pittwater council because the proponents failed to establish "clearly positive benefits sufficient to overcome the dislocation, discontinuity and expense inevitably involved in such a move". The fourth Boundaries Commission inquiry into the peninsula was established by the Hon. David Hay, M.B.E., then the Minister for Local Government and Planning, who, on three occasions, failed to ensure the preparation of independent financial evaluation of the Pittwater proposal: first, when he cancelled the arrangements for the appointment of independent financial consultants, on 24 August 1989; second, when he appointed the Boundaries Commission to conduct an interim study and did not ensure as Minister, that the study satisfied the brief, on 31 January 1990; and third, when he stopped Warringah Council from preparing its own evaluation of financial data for publication in the interim study, on 26 February 1990. The fourth inquiry began in July 1990 and considered evidence that indicated that the additional operating cost to the Warringah community of a separate council in Pittwater would be approximately $4 million, excluding establishment costs. It was estimated that around $2.5 million would be needed within Pittwater and an additional $1.5 million would be required in the remaining part of Warringah to maintain the same levels of service in both areas. In Page 758 1990 the Boundaries Commission inquiry found that there was no administration necessary to establish a separate Pittwater council. The commission went on to note that given the considerable impact the establishment of a new council would have on the area, the previous petitions in support of a separate Pittwater council, "should not be taken as evidence that the price to pay for gaining a new Council is acceptable to the electors of the area". The commission resolved that the next step in the process should be to ascertain the wishes of the electors of A riding by holding a poll constrained only to the electors of A riding; that is those who would have to pay the price. Warringah Council maintained consistently that the Pittwater secession should not occur as it would adversely impact on the residents of the peninsula either in terms of increased rates or increased services. Warringah requested consistently that if a poll were to be conducted, it should be conducted across the entire council and not only in A riding. The former Minister for Local Government, the Hon. David Hay, in a conversation with the Warringah Council general manager stated that the exclusive A riding poll was not meant to determine whether A riding should secede, it was merely a public test of whether the majority of the A riding residents wished to have their own council. Had a majority - 50 per cent or greater - been achieved in the initial poll, Mr Hay advised that his next step, had he remained Minister, would have been to conduct a poll over the entire Warringah shire area in conjunction with the next general election scheduled three months later - in September 1991. Whatever Mr Hay's intentions may have been, the fact remains he was not the Minister when the poll was held in June 1991 and the then Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives, the Hon. G. Peacocke, decided to set aside the original guidelines, which were established by the Boundaries Commission, in setting the rules for the poll. That is, the poll had to achieve more than 50 per cent of the enrolled voters to be effective. Mr Peacocke determined that the results of the poll, at 48 per cent in favour, not only demonstrated sufficient support for the secession but was the final determination in the process. The Hon. Franca Arena: It was all done to save Jim Longley's seat, was it not? The Hon. DOROTHY ISAKSEN: That is right. I think Mr Longley now regrets it. After making this political decision to create a separate Pittwater council, the former Minister, Mr Peacocke, then failed to ensure that appropriate principles and procedures existed to augment the legislation so that political decision could be efficiently and equitably achieved in practice. The overriding administrative failure in the entire exercise, however, must be attributed to the Boundaries Commission of the day, first, for not ensuring that a full feasibility study and independent financial costings were produced; and, second, for not putting in place appropriate guidelines and procedures for the secession to occur, including the apportionment of staff, assets and liabilities. Residents of Warringah have been penalised about $7.7 million. Warringah is seeking the restoration of those costs directly incurred as a result of the secession. The claim contains four components: reimbursements to the external legal and consultant costs incurred by Warringah in this matter, amounting to $8.25 million; recovery of the write-off working funds to reimburse and pay out the internal loans, $4.3 million; recovery of the internal staff and administrative costs, $1.25 million; and recovery of the annual loss of economy of scale, $1.4 million. Should the State Government not honour its commitment to the residents of Warringah, there must either be a rate increase or a severe and continuing reduction in the level of services currently provided to our community by Warringah Council. The 135,000 residents of Warringah were not consulted in this process and their interests have been ignored. As Judge Cooper commented in his decision of 14 December 1993, the exclusion from the poll of the residents of the balance of the shire "gave rise to a stinging sense of injustice amongst those excluded residents". At the recent deputation with the mayor of Warringah and the general manager, the Minister said that residents of Pittwater had to accept that they had to pay a price for their independence. The mayor of Warringah, together with the deputy mayor, put forward a claim on behalf of the ratepayers of Warringah for recovery of lost revenue for the split. The Minister expressed the view that he was extremely sympathetic to the issues raised by the delegation. However, he was limited in the degree of direct support he could offer. The Minister ruled out the possibility of a government subsidy or grant to offset the full $4.7 million cost to Warringah.