Local Government Amendment Bill 2010, Trenorden
Author: Max Trenorden
Published on: 29-June-2011
I am not having a go at all, but I will read what she said in Hansard a little later. I will go through those people who spoke. I thank the Labor Party and Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich for her comments.
She spoke at some length about reform not necessarily benefiting everyone. We all know that some councils in the state are basically no more than what were once roads boards. They cannot go broke because all they have is enough money to carry out a certain function. In fact, it is very hard to see anyone more efficient than someone who receives a sum of money for a precise activity and carries it out. Some of the very small councils are efficient in their current structure. Of course, then there are the major arguments about amalgamation of councils in the metropolitan area.
Hon Robin Chapple spoke about referring the bill to the Standing Committee on Legislation. Members might recall at the time I introduced the bill that I had trouble getting this bill drafted but it was finally drafted by parliamentary counsel. I saw Hon Michael Mischin flipping through the Local Government Act to check, as a good lawyer should, the functions of my bill. I am pleased to see that he is not here to argue with me, so he could not have found any immediate problems with the bill. It is a private member’s bill and, private members’ bills carry a risk. This is my effort—my bill; it is a private member’s bill. I understand the argument to refer the bill to the legislation committee, although it is not my personal preference.
This is an extremely simple, very uncomplicated bill, but I understand and agree with the members who spoke that the issue is not simple; it is just that my bill happens to be simple. Obviously, if the house wants the bill to be referred to a committee, I have absolutely no argument with that whatsoever. I would love to participate in that process, but it might be a little difficult because I am not a member of that committee. Nevertheless, I will be confident about the findings of the committee. If it gives members of this place confidence, that is the right thing to do.
I thank Hon Philip Gardiner for his comments and I acknowledge his passion for local government. I also thank the Greens for their interest and the way they dealt with me. They were keen to have a briefing from me; in fact, they were the first group to seek a briefing. I thank also the members of the Labor Party who took the time to have a briefing. I find quite daunting the pressures of trying to get to every briefing that arises from matters in this place, so I appreciate their time. I thank also Hon Robyn McSweeney for her comments. I point out,
however, that everything in the bill requires the minister’s support. If the bill is passed, proposed new section 3.69 will ensure that the minister may not unreasonably withhold approval of an application. That is included because the minister has enormous power under the bill to refuse any of the proposals.
In South Australia—I did not go to the Northern Territory so I cannot talk about the Northern Territory—the corporate entity that is put in place must have the tick of the Minister for Local Government. The whole intent and description of the corporate entity must have the tick, first, of the Department of Local Government, which would peruse it, and then,
ultimately, the tick of the minister. That is why the bill has one clause that provides that the minister cannot unreasonably withhold approval, so that people who submit the plans can have some balance with the minister, who will have overwhelming power to decide what happens with these corporate entities. I am keen to make sure I keep my part of the deal.
On the question of analysis, Hon Robyn McSweeney, the argument is the same. The minister has the capacity to consider all the issues relating to what is put forward to the minister in a corporate plan—an analysis included. The last thing that I would like to say is that I am very appreciative of the support that I have received from local
government. Well over half the local government associations in Western Australia have written to me supporting the bill. I did not bother to bring that correspondence to the house. A range of people in local government contacted my office weekly asking about the progress of this bill. They are very, very keen on this option. I do not disagree with Hon Robyn McSweeney’s argument that there is only one option. As indicated in the passage that Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich read from the report that Hon Nigel Hallett and I wrote, this adds another bow to the whole question of amalgamation. We can have amalgamation itself, we can have subordinate legislation, which is what I am driving, or we can leave things as they are. At the moment, we have one option.
Mr Deputy President (Hon Brian Ellis), you would know more than most members in this chamber that this issue has been well canvassed in the state. There is not one area of the state that has not looked at it. I have even briefed four councils in the western suburbs. They wanted me to come and see them and describe the bill to them because they wanted a simple function relating to parking meters. Those four councils want to put a very simple process together in which there is one administrator, whatever number of parking inspectors, one administration of funds and no overlay of corporate costs.
They are as keen as mustard to do that as it would enable them to deliver a significantly cheaper service, even though many of us in this chamber complain about the service from time to time. That is the model that I have proposed. The other argument is that councils can take the full range of all those complicated shared services that every council has to manage. They can have a corporate activity That corporate activity might involve the Shire of Mukinbudin and the City of Stirling, so that the Shire of Mukinbudin can receive the benefits from a council the size of Stirling.
I thank the house for its support of the bill. Quite a few members of the Liberal Party spoke to me about this bill. I thank them for their goodwill. My only intention is to give passage to some good administration. I hope that this bill can progress through the committee system easily. I truly hope that the Minister for Local Government will look at this bill. During conversations that I have had with him recently, he said that he believes that my type of bill is very useful for the mix of local government. He believes that there are other options as well, as does ALGA. I repeat that my intention was that because this is a private member’s bill, not a National Party bill, I would prefer that it be dealt with quickly and succinctly in this chamber. I have a belief in the mechanics of the two houses that that is the best way to deal with private members’ legislation. We should grab it and deal with it over the road. I obviously will not argue with the will of the house. I look forward to the passage of my bill.
