Debate resumed from 3 May.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee) [10.24]: I lead for the Opposition on this bill. When the Opposition was first told of the proposals in this bill it was generally supportive of it. However, there have been further developments and one issue that I will come to later will certainly be opposed quite vigorously. The Opposition has three other concerns: the number of councillors, the payment of senior staff, and the band in which staff are considered for senior executive service conditions. The Opposition foreshadows that it will move three amendments in respect of those issues. The bill addresses a number of matters, most of which involve relatively minor, but nevertheless necessary, amendments to the Local Government Act 1993. Before I turn to some of the specific and more substantial amendments, I would like to make a few general comments about the bill.

The bill debated in the House 12 months ago had its origins under the previous Labor Government. In early 1988 that Government announced an extensive review of the Local Government Act 1919. The Government was then committed to reforming and modernising the Local Government Act. The Act had been amended hundreds of times and had a minefield of amendments to interpret. If someone asked what the Act said in respect of a particular issue, one had to go through practically the entire volume to ensure one had picked up all the matters that might impinge on that issue. The aim of the review exercise was to ensure that the Act better reflected the needs of local government and in particular the community, which was demanding more open and accountable government.

The coalition Government had a policy of continuing that review of the Act, but it was delayed for about three years because the local government Minister at the time, David Hay, did not act on the matter; virtually nothing happened for three years. The next Minister for Local Government certainly realised the importance of the issue and got on with the job. The bill was the subject of extensive consultation with local councils, the Local Government and Shires Associations, trade unions and professional organisations, as well as the broader community. This was an important principle with regard to the framing of the bill - a principle which has not been followed in this particular case, but I will refer to that later.

Bearing in mind that New South Wales has about 177 councils and 2,000 elected representatives, the bill was always going to generate wide-ranging community debate. As a member of the legislation committee dealing with the primary bill, I was involved in the community discussions - as were my colleagues on that committee, who I believe acted in a very constructive manner. When I spoke in the debate on the second reading I emphasised the necessity for the consultation process, through the legislation committee. I believe that the committee undertook a very important exercise and I was most impressed with the fact that, although it was a cross-party committee, a wide consensus developed on what was best for local government.

That process enabled many important, and sometimes contentious, issues to be aired and debated, and the amendments were drafted and recommended to the House. Many were adopted against the Government's wishes, but I do not think that, at the end of the day, the Minister or the Government were
Page 2594
terribly unhappy with the way the Act turned out. Of course, it is widely acknowledged that, given the complexity of the new legislation, there would almost invariably be a need to introduce an amending bill to address minor amendments, remove anomalies in the Act and respond to policy submissions received since the gazettal of the original Act. To some extent this bill performs this function; to some extent it does not.

The bill contains a wide range of provisions. I hope it is not the first in a long line of amending bills that will introduce into the new Act the complications contained in the old Act. Having said that, I believe it is possible to avoid that undesirable situation. One of the underlying philosophies of the new Act that has been emphasised by all sides of the political spectrum and in the community is the recognition, so far as possible, of the autonomy of local government. In the second reading debate that preceded the enactment of the new legislation, the Minister and most speakers emphasised that the new Act was framed to allow councils to have as broad a range of opportunities as possible to make decisions affecting their relevant areas. Whereas the old Act tended to be overprescriptive and attempted to rigidly control what local government could and could not do, the new Act was a significant step towards providing local government with substantial policy flexibility. I do not know any member of this House who, in a discussion on local government, would disagree with that philosophy, yet the Government is intent on flouting that principle in an undemocratic way.

Local government must always have a detailed legislative framework within which to operate. Although the practical situation is debatable, it is reasonable for councils to be able to decide certain fundamental policy issues. However, under the present constitutional arrangements the State Government is responsible for the operation of local government, and the community looks to the State Government if a local government area has obvious problems. Notwithstanding that, it is undoubtedly a good thing for local government to be given as much flexibility as possible to determine local policy issues. Councils, therefore, should be free to prepare detailed policies that address a wide range of matters for their local areas. The new Act is less prescriptive than the old Act. It should not require a great deal of amendment, certainly not in the way the bill proposes. The new Act contains a legitimate requirement to develop policy in an open and publicly accountable manner. That is to ensure that the public is able to influence policy. That requirement has been complied with by local government across the board.

I should like to refer to a number of issues. The honourable member for Manly will move amendments in relation to tendering and orders affecting heritage items. The bill proposes that section 377 be amended to prevent councils from delegating power to a general manager. Bearing in mind the significance of a general manager's position in the local government organisational structure and the fact that many of a general manager's functions and duties are specifically set out in section 333 of the Act and are declared to be beyond the reach of an elected council, the position is a powerful one. Is it intended by the Government that general managers not be answerable to elected councils in relation to the way in which they exercise their functions under section 335? What remedy is available to an elected council if a general manager abuses his or her power contrary to the wishes of that elected council?

That is certainly not a hypothetical question. The problem has already arisen, and no doubt further instances of conflict between an elected council and a general manager will arise. What is a council to do if a general manager appoints staff contrary to equal employment opportunity principles, or a general manager appoints his or her relatives to positions in the council? What will happen if a general manager's management style causes industrial disputation among council employees, leading to a breakdown in the delivery of services to the community? Is it seriously suggested that neither a mayor nor an elected council should have the power to intervene or to take necessary corrective action when the public looks to them to solve a problem? If a general manager makes decisions that are not supported by a council and adverse public reaction results, the mayor and the elected councillors will obviously publicly distance themselves from those decisions. Invariably, serious instances of public disagreement and conflict between general managers and their councils will arise. The current situation at the Great Lakes Council is a good example. The newly appointed general manager of that council has replaced two long-serving senior members of staff against what he knew to be the wishes of the majority of the council. That will certainly lead to a nasty public dispute in the local community that may be costly to resolve.

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that it has occurred in a fairly small community. The people who have lost their jobs have prestige and standing in the community and they have now been stripped of their employment. They have limited opportunities to find alternative employment or to move to another part of the town. I understand that the General Manager of the Great Lakes Council may be dismissed with a large lump sum payout of his contract, which is only a few months old. I understand also that there is some dispute as to whether the contract should have provided for a one-year payout or, as is being put forward by the general manager, he should be paid for the complete unpaid period of the five-year contract. The redundancy of the two senior staff members has led to industrial and legal disputation involving the Federal Industrial Court.

I hope the Department of Local Government and Co-operatives takes the commonsense view that general managers will only exercise their powers with the majority support of their councils. However, such a view is more than a little naive to anyone who understands the nature of local government. If that is the department's expectation, why is an elected council not merely given the power to exercise such
Page 2595
powers in its own right, thereby avoiding the possibility of public conflict? At the end of the day the community holds the elected council accountable for its actions, including any that may arise from decisions of the general manager. The new approach that seeks to shift authority from elected councils to unelected general managers is fundamentally flawed. It should certainly be closely examined before it causes serious problems between general managers and councils, such as the problem now occurring at the Great Lakes Council.

Ultimate power over a council's local policies and organisational structure should rest entirely on the shoulders of the council. That is what the community expects and, after all, that is how democracy is supposed to work. The specific amendments to section 377 propose that the appointment of a general manager should not be a delegated decision. To that extent, Labor supports the amendment. The bill also proposes an amendment to section 441 to ensure that all members of the council committee, which is established to exercise council functions, are required to disclose interests that could give rise to conflict between a member's duty on the committee and his or her private interest. This amendment mirrors the general perception of the intent of the original Act, and the Opposition supports it.

The bill also proposes that a new section 332(2) be inserted to ensure that senior staff positions will be determined on the basis of appropriate executive responsibility. The Opposition supports the intent of the first part of this amendment, but it will move an amendment to section 332(2)(b) of the Act to bring local government managers into line with their counterparts in the senior executive service. When the Local Government Bill was considered in this House on 18 May 1993 the Opposition unsuccessfully moved a number of amendments to Government proposals to deregulate industrial relations for middle management and lower salaried staff in local government. The Government had intended to create a parallel with the senior executive service. The bill proposed to regulate the salaries and conditions of local government managers by requiring councils, under section 332, to declare positions to be senior staff, and, under section 340, to deny senior staff access to awards or tribunals. In doing so, the Government disadvantaged local government staff on salaries considerably below their SES counterparts, creating unfairness and inequity in the industry.

Many councils extended senior staff classifications too far down the organisational structure in an effort to deregulate the industrial conditions of as many employees as possible, leading to widespread reduction in rates of pay for employees who were forced to apply for their own positions on lower remuneration salaries than they were already receiving. This action has subsequently led to widespread dislocation in industry and great personal hardship. For example, Ulmarra Shire Council advertised a chief engineer's position at a package of $12,000 per annum less than the previous incumbent's remuneration, and the chief health and building surveyor's package at $10,000 less than the previous package. Both positions had their remunerations set under the terms of the Local Government (State) Award after using an external consultant, after having it passed through the consultative committee of council and, finally, by resolution of council. Salary rates in the Local Government (State) Award are set by agreement between local government unions and the Local Government and Shires Association. They are not rates of pay that can be reduced fairly, as they have been properly set by agreement in the industry in the first place.

A change in the political make-up of the council at Ulmarra drove out hard-working, loyal staff who, because of the provisions of sections 332 and 340 of the Local Government Act, were unable to take the issue to the New South Wales Industrial Tribunal. In another country town, people lost their employment with no prospect of gaining similar employment in the same area, and that resulted in all sorts of social and financial hardship. Ironically, the SES is one of the most carefully and well regulated areas of public sector employment. All positions are evaluated by a uniform job evaluation system, but the Government chose not to provide this support mechanism in local government, rather to allow the industry to do what it pleased at the expense of its employees. No structure was set up in local government to determine the provisions of the senior executive service; it is purely at the whim of council to determine the level.

There is no reason that the council could not go down the line to leading hand level and classify that position as senior executive service. That would result in that employee losing coverage by any local government awards and at the whim of the council on an SES package - a package which would not necessarily have a logical basis. Generally local government is not an industry that pays excessively high salaries. In most councils in this State only the general manager would fit into the SES category. In the larger councils, directors of technical services, environmental services and corporate services may also fit into the SES category, but only at the lowest level.

The determination of the Statutory and Other Officers Remuneration Tribunal, under the Statutory and Other Officers Remuneration Act 1975, increased these rates from 31 March so that the minimum entry level for SES officers is a remuneration package of $88,810. That is the rate for officers identified as general managerial in nature. SES rates lead to remuneration packages of more than $200,000, far in excess of rates paid in local government and, in many instances, for positions that are entirely different. The Labor Party welcomes the amendment proposed by the Minister as it will remove some of the inequity.

However, raising the remuneration level, as the Minister proposes by regulation under proposed section 332(2)(b), will only remove part of the inequities. Local government staff on salary packages will remain $20,000 below their SES counterpart's
Page 2596
award, free of, and without access to, industrial tribunals. The amendment will push down the remuneration band of employees and they will lose industrial cover. The Labor Party will not tolerate such an inequity. It believes in safety nets being provided by industrial tribunals, and the amendments of the Labor Party will remove the imbalance between local government employees and their SES counterparts. I foreshadow that, in accordance with Labor Party policy, in March next year the incoming Labor Government will redraft sections of the Local Government Act to protect staff and to provide access for all staff to industrial tribunals to avoid the victimisation, humiliation and personal suffering created by parts of the Act within the industry.

The bill proposes that section 504 of the Act be amended to allow councils to finance the provision of domestic waste management service from internal loans from the organisation's ordinary rate revenue. This amendment should be supported. Under the current legislation it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for certain services to be provided. In particular, services that may involve an initial and substantial capital outlay, such as the purchase of recycling crates for distribution to all householders in a council area, will now be able to be funded from internal loans. The alternative, presumably, would have been to fund such outlays from the domestic waste management charge. Clearly, that charge would be insufficient to fund such large purchases and to fund the day-to-day operation of a council's waste services.

An amendment dealing with the definition of public places will ensure that councils are able to enforce regulations in all public places, except national parks. Under the existing Act there is some doubt about the ability of councils to prosecute for offences that occur on beaches and certain other Crown land. If this were so, it is possible that council-employed lifeguards, for instance, would have no lawful authority to enforce regulations on beaches and in the water. Given the importance of this issue, therefore, any existing doubt should be removed, and the amendment will do that.

Provisions for the use of skateboards and roller blades have attracted quite a deal of media attention. The bill seeks to create an offence of using skateboards or roller blades, "so as to obstruct, annoy, inconvenience or cause danger to another person". While it is proper that the dangerous use of skateboards and roller blades should be prohibited, it is difficult to imagine how councils will be able to prosecute people for annoying others. It is so subjective as to be unenforceable. Offences that rely on other people's perceptions are usually problematical and open to abuse. The extent to which people are prosecuted for annoying others should certainly be monitored. Proposed new section 681A will allow such skating equipment, surfboards and the like to be confiscated if orders issued by the council are ignored.

The bill will empower the Minister to make regulations setting safety standards for swimming pools on public land. Such standards may include rules governing staff - such as training, qualifications and numbers - as well as the standard of safety equipment. The Opposition supports this. With regard to public swimming pools, the appropriate authority - usually the local government body - should maintain a certain standard of safety. That is the expectation of the community. When adults and children go to a public pool they expect adequate safety supervision to ensure that accidents do not occur.

The Opposition will be proposing two amendments in Committee which will affect the number of councillors. Some councils have expressed a desire to restructure ward representation to allow the application of proportional representation and to slightly increase the number of councillors - to 15. A referendum is an expensive and cumbersome way of achieving such a change. As the Government is suggesting a reduction in the number of councillors without a referendum, it appears reasonable to allow a minor expansion for the same restricted period. Other councils desire to have available to them a popularly elected mayor and 15 councillors. Under the current Act one can no longer be a mayor and a councillor. Some councils which previously had 15 councillors, one of whom was a popularly elected mayor, now find that they have one person too many. I will be moving an amendment to allow the aggregate number on those councils to increase to 16, including a popularly elected mayor. I am not suggesting that this should be extended to councils to which this does not apply.

I notice that the Government has included what I term the Botany amendment. Botany Council currently has 15 councillors and has taken the decision to reduce its councillors to seven. There are currently two vacancies on that council - I believe that one member may have died. Under the current Act a council is required to hold by-elections for those two positions. As at the election in September 1995 there will only be seven councillors on that council. It seems incongruous to force that council to hold a by-election when it does not want to. The Government has proposed an amendment to overcome this situation. It has acceded to the wishes of Botany Council. The Minister was shaking his head to the effect that we cannot make special rules and regulations for individual councils. However, I notice that the amendment he intends to move to schedule 16, page 41, mentions Botany Council. He is not following that principle.

It is ironic that the bill will allow councils to choose whether to call themselves municipalities or shires. When the local government legislation was being debated last year there was agitation in the Sutherland shire to maintain that particular appellation. Because of the somewhat tenuous situation the Government faces in that area in retaining one of its seats, an exception was made to allow the Sutherland shire to become the only council
Page 2597
to maintain the name shire. This has now been extended to all other councils. The Opposition does not oppose that amendment.

Mr Kerr: I should not think so.

Mr E. T. PAGE: Who cares what the member thinks? A week or so ago the department briefed the Opposition, with the good grace of the Minister, on the amendments. Even though it was not said in such stark terms, there was no doubt that this legislation is purely a housekeeping measure - to correct anomalies and spelling errors in the Act. These things need to be done from time to time. By and large the Opposition did not have any great objection to the matters raised. The matters raised by the Opposition were of a minor and technical nature. However, yesterday we were told that the Government intends to pursue an amendment which will dramatically affect the rating structure in the local government area. In the previous bill the Government sought to take away the option for councils to have minimum rates - an option for councils for some decades. In the general sense, it is not a matter of great concern or agitation in the community. In my area councils have minimum rates and they apply universally to strata title units. I get no representations from people about the level of the minimum rates.

The Government sought to delete the minimum rating option from the previous bill 12 months ago. That was against general opinion in local government; it did not have community support. The Opposition successfully moved an amendment which maintained the status quo. Minimum rating has remained an option for councils - and for the Government. A base rate is available. If a council wishes to it can apply a base rate which cannot gather more than 50 per cent of the rate income for that particular parcel of property. The other 50 per cent of the rate income would be determined on ad valorem value. Councils have a degree of flexibility. That is what the Local Government Act was supposed to be all about - giving local government flexibility to make decisions in various areas. The Labor Party amendment to maintain the minimum rate was supported by the three Independents. That gave councils a good option so far as rate raising was concerned. There have been very few concerns about it since. I will refer to the concerns in a moment.

Yesterday the Government informed the Opposition that it will move an amendment that will bring about a major policy change: from 1 July 1995 minimum rating will be done away with. The Local Government Association has informed me that it has not been contacted on this issue. And the Government talks about consultation! The Local Government Act was put together on the basis of extensive consultation. Yet the major body which represents all local government bodies in New South Wales has not even been informed, let alone consulted. I had to tell the association that the Government was seeking to change the Local Government Act to alter the rating basis for all its members. Councils have not been informed either. The industry has been kept in the dark. This Government says it believes in community consultation. It has not consulted at all on this matter. Bligh is the only electorate where there is a major problem. It has a significant number of blocks of units which have company title.

Mr West: Actually, fewer than North Sydney.

Mr E. T. PAGE: But by comparison with the number of strata title units, there are not too many company title units in Sydney. Passage of changes to the Local Government Act last year meant that company title units became eligible for the minimum rate. Previously rates were applied only to legally identifiable property holdings. If a family had a block of land, that block might attract the minimum rate or the ad valorem rate. A strata title unit was a separate legal property entity, for which a rate was struck - possibly a minimum rate. If land on which company title units is owned not by Joe Blow but by Joe Blow Pty Limited, it is identified under the Act as one property. If the rate struck on that block of land is $1,000 in accordance with the ad valorem or minimum rate, and if there are 10 shareholders in the company they would pay $100 each. The changes to the Act meant that company title units were liable to the minimum rate. The honourable member for Bligh has found that people on low fixed incomes in her area living in company title blocks have had a 400 per cent increase in rates.

Allegedly to overcome this problem, the Minister is now saying that the minimum rate should be abolished. Philosophically, that would return the position to how it stood 12 months ago. I do not believe that is the way to solve the problem, because it will affect most of the councils in the metropolitan area and possibly country councils. City councils generally apply the minimum rate to strata title units, and so those who live in such units contribute to council rate income commensurate with the services provided and their ability to pay. Without a minimum rate, people living in strata title units worth hundreds of thousands of dollars would have a tremendous decrease in their rates and not provide adequate funds to their council. Philosophically, I believe that people in a better position to afford to contribute to the council's coffers should do so. Any reduction in income because of the abolition of the minimum rate would mean that home owners would have to pay more. Generally they are family people.

The Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment and Minister for the Status of Women makes statements in the House about this being the International Year of the Family. She says that we must do something for the family. Yet an outcome of this legislation would be the imposition of a generally higher rate burden on families, because householders will have to make up for the reduction in rates paid by unit owners. The problems in the electorate of Bligh could be solved fairly easily by returning to the previous situation in which the relatively few company title properties received one rate bill to be divided amongst the owners of the company, rather than each having to pay the minimum rate.

Page 2598

The Greiner Government established an inquiry into local government rating under the former head of Treasury, Norm Oakes. It was obvious at the time that Premier Greiner was enamoured of the poll tax system introduced in Britain by Thatcher. This was to be the basis of the report. Unfortunately for the Government - or fortunately, possibly - just before the report was to be released there were massive public demonstrations in Great Britain against the poll tax. The reaction was unprecedented. One of the cities where great public dissatisfaction was displayed was Bath. I do not think Bath has ever elected a member of Parliament with left leanings. The member for Bath at the time was a fellow by the name of Chris Patton, one of Thatcher's trusted Ministers. The reaction against the poll tax was so strong that he lost his seat. It was probably Bath's gain but it has not done much for Hong Kong. The report was redrafted to provide for, in effect, a flat tax instead of a poll tax. This involved having the rate comprising two components: one an across-the-board amount and the other an ad valorem calculation. This was a fallback position by the Government to have a flat tax in local government charges across all levels of property.

I believe the Government is latching on to a legitimate concern of the honourable member for Bligh and recasting the rating system so that as time goes on it will be able to amend it further to mirror more closely its concept that whether people are rich or poor they pay the same local government rates. That is a backward step. When the amendments to the Act were debated 12 months ago it was said that because of the complexity of the rating system and the wide-ranging effects of any significant change in the system, a separate inquiry into the rating system should be held. The Government could then have come back and said, "We have put out option papers and consulted with the community. Here are some options for the rating system". That is logical with a subject of this complexity. The minimum would be to discuss the matter with the Local Government Association. None of that has been done in this case. I am amazed that the matter has not been discussed with the association.

I was so sure that it had been discussed that I almost did not bother ringing the association. I thought no government would be so crass and so stupid as not to discuss it with the main umbrella body of local government. The association had not heard about the proposals. That is outrageous. On that basis alone the proposal should be voted against, regardless of the principles of the matter. A legitimate way to solve the problem raised by the honourable member for Bligh would be to reinstate the previous system under which company title units have an ad valorem rate on the value of the entire block and the members of the company decide how the amount will be divided among them.

I pay tribute to the previous Minister for Local Government and Cooperatives. For three years there was no progress in the review of local government legislation, but the honourable member for Dubbo took the bit between his teeth. He could not be faulted in his dedication to making sure that Parliament was presented with a reasonably good document for consideration. Whilst I did not agree with everything in the bill presented by the previous Minister, its introduction and passage were surely a feather in his cap. I was amazed, as was everyone else, when the previous Minister, having managed to get that legislation through this Parliament, was dumped from the ministry. That was outrageous.

Since taking office the present Government has passed two significant legislative measures, the Industrial Relations Act and the Local Government Act. I do not necessarily agree with all of the legislation, but in my opinion the previous Minister for Local Government and Cooperatives should have been given an accolade rather than be booted out the door. I have been reasonably impressed with the present Minister, as well, but his proposal to introduce a significant change to the rating system without undertaking consultation is outrageous. The Minister should resign from his portfolio. It is my hope that the industry berates him for what he intends to do later this morning. I have handed my proposed amendments to the Clerk of the House and have given a copy to the Minister. I thank the Minister for giving me copies of his amendments yesterday.

Mr HARRISON (Kiama) [11.13]: This bill will amend the Local Government Act. On balance, the amendments deserve the support of this side of the House, and they will receive it. It is a pity that today's debate has been soured a little by the Minister's announcement that he intends to introduce an amendment to abolish the minimum rate. The Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Coogee, has canvassed that matter fairly well. The bill provides councils with the power to delegate to the mayor or the chairperson the power of expulsion, and that amendment is long overdue. During discussion in the legislation committee on the local government legislation committee, which was established by the previous Minister for Local Government and Cooperatives, I expressed my concern that a mayor's power to expel from a meeting a councillor for disorderly conduct was unclear.

Police officers have been called to disorderly meetings on occasions. It has been possible for council members to make absurd, insulting and outrageous statements, to withdraw and apologise unreservedly for those statements when requested to do so, and then three or four minutes later to repeat the same insults and obscenities. Whilst the bill gives the power of expulsion to the council as a whole, I am satisfied that the Government's amendment will provide that the council may delegate that authority to the mayor or chairperson of a council meeting. Under the proposed change to section 12 of the Act, contained in item (2) to schedule 1 of the bill, a council that desires to purchase operational land at auction will not be required to disclose a decision taken at a closed meeting. This amendment is appropriate and deserves support. The price of the land could well be affected if a council's intention to bid became known.

Page 2599

The decision to allow councils the discretion to reintroduce the title of shire or municipality is consistent with the wishes of the Local Government Association and with the concession made to Sutherland Shire Council, which at present is the only council in this State to enjoy that concession. That change is also worthy of support. The measure designed to reduce the number of aldermen on a council without the necessity of holding a referendum is of benefit to local government. It is very costly to hold a referendum, and in circumstances in which a whole local government area is involved the expense of such a referendum could be between $50,000 and $100,000. Ratepayers' money is much too valuable to be spent on such bureaucratic processes. I commend the Government for the change. Having said that, a problem does exist with a small group of councils that already have 15 members, a ward system and a popularly elected mayor. Under the present legislation, those councils could have a potential complement of 16 members: 15 councillors and a popularly elected mayor.

An anomaly has arisen in that the bill states that the maximum complement for a council will be 15. This means that councils so affected would have to reduce their complement to a maximum of 14 in order to have a popularly elected mayor, as it is not possible for a councillor to hold the two positions of councillor and mayor. That in itself presents some difficulties. I have long held the view that it is desirable to have an odd number of councillors. This House has 99 members, and it would be unthinkable for any parliament to have an even number of members, resulting in the possibility of a deadlock in numbers and the Speaker being called on to use his casting vote at every division. I had the experience of being mayor for one year in a council that was made up of 12 aldermen. The council had five mayors in six years; a name was drawn out of the hat every year to decide who would be mayor. In that council every major issue was decided on the mayor's casting vote. Councillors would come into council meetings with recision motions already prepared. They knew that their proposals would be rolled by the mayor's casting vote so they had recision motions ready in order that the same matters could be debated the following month, knowing that the mayor would again use his casting vote then. Such a practice is undesirable.

I return to my point about having 15 councillors. With a ward system it is extremely difficult to maintain the existing number of councillors because no odd number below 15 is evenly divisible until you reach the number 9, which could be divided into three wards of three; 13 and 11 are not evenly divisible. If the desire is to maintain an odd number of councillors, the numbers would need to be dramatically decreased from 15 to nine, which would certainly not suit the purposes of all local government areas. I agree that 15 councillors is the optimum number for any local government body. One circumstance that does not necessarily exist but has potential to arise is that if a council has 15 councillors, and a popularly elected mayor, the total would be 16.

Mr West: Which would create the problem again of an even number.

Mr HARRISON: Yes, but the mayor does not vote unless there is a deadlock, and with 15 councillors that would not happen. That situation prevailed while I was a popularly elected mayor. I was required to cast only a deciding vote when there was a deadlock. That occurred on only about three or four occasions in the 12 years that I was with council. I ask the Government to take on board the concern of the Opposition about the need to marginally alter the mandatory cut-off figure of 15 councillors. Local governments that have wards and a desire to maintain an odd number of councillors, and a popularly elected mayor, face the prospect of the number blowing out to 16. This matter will be pursued at the Committee stage; it is an amendment that is worthy of support from the Government.

I join my colleague the honourable member for Coogee, who led for the Opposition, in expressing concern that as recently as yesterday another Government amendment, dealing with the abolition of the minimum rate, was dumped on us. The Opposition was briefed about a week ago by members of the Department of Local Government and Co-operatives, and we appreciated that. The Government said that it was putting all is cards on the table; that it was not attempting to put anything over us; and that it wanted us to be briefed by departmental officers so we had every opportunity to see what was going on. It is a good feeling when you are included in the decision-making process.

However, the situation has been soured by the Government's decision to surreptitiously introduce a further amendment without consultation with the Local Government Association, let alone with the elected representatives who are called upon to make a decision. I appreciate the degree of co-operation from the previous Minister for Local Government and Cooperatives. As the honourable member for Coogee pointed out, to get the Local Government Act passed through the Parliament, the Minister walked a minefield of different groups that included the Australian Democrats, the Independents, Call to Australia and the Opposition. It is a tribute to him that he was able to achieve that because it was no mean feat. As a consequence, he received the respect of everyone.

I also have respect for the present Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives, who has always been upfront with the Opposition and has indicated a genuine concern for local government. That concern would certainly be reflected in country people everywhere because as a general rule they relate to their councils more than city people do. I must express disappointment on this occasion. No doubt this decision came from Cabinet and the Minister is acting under instructions, so I do not blame the Minister. The decision to abolish the minimum rate was satisfactorily explained by the honourable member for Coogee. He identified a particular problem in the electorate of Bligh. This amendment seeks to use a sledge-hammer to crush an egg.

Page 2600

If the amendment is agreed to by the House, ratepayers will be disadvantaged because people living in strata title units will pay less. They will not be caught up in the minimum rate. The only result can be that people on fixed low incomes and those living in normal residential allotments will pay more. There cannot be any other solution. It runs contrary to everything that the Opposition believes in. I have canvassed the matters I wish to speak to at present but during the Committee stage I will elaborate further on some matters.

Mr MOSS (Canterbury) [11.26]: The Opposition does not have a great deal of criticism with the bill, as stated by the honourable member for Coogee and the honourable member for Kiama. The majority of the measures are really housekeeping matters that obviously are necessary because of the new Local Government Act. It has been necessary to clear up some areas of that Act such as the provision for lodging security deposits in the consolidated fund. It will no longer be necessary to include in the Act sections for referendums providing the option of preferential or proportional representation voting, because the provision no longer applies.

The majority of the bill is reasonable, and I wish to speak briefly to a couple of areas that I agree with. The mayor or chairman of a committee has authority to eject from a meeting anyone considered to be behaving in an unruly manner or disrupting the meeting. Of course, it is reasonable that a mayor or chairman of a committee should have that authority. I do not envisage that authority being abused, because the council will delegate the power to the mayor or the chairman to expel a member. If a chairman or mayor unjustly expells councillors from a meeting purely to gain the numbers, council will be able to reverse that delegation and then itself exercise that particular power.

The amendment is reasonable. After all, the mayor or the chairman of the committee is the person largely responsible for the smooth transaction of business and the proper conduct of the meeting and therefore should have that power, subject to delegation by the council. I support the amendment to section 366 to allow an extraordinary meeting to be called within seven days. Under the current legislation, an obstinate mayor who does not want an extraordinary meeting to proceed immediately, for whatever reason, can sit back and do nothing for 21 days. I dare say most councils would meet within each 21-day period, in which case under existing legislation it would not be necessary to hold an extraordinary meeting. Obviously, an extraordinary meeting is usually convened as quickly as possible to consider a matter of urgency. The current provision allowing 21 days to elapse before such a meeting can take place defeats the purpose. Seven days is a sensible time frame.

Another amendment will permit councils to reduce the number of councillors to fewer than 15, by way of resolution and without a referendum, if council resolves to do so by 1 January 1995. I will not elaborate on this amendment because it has been well and truly covered by the two previous speakers. If it is reasonable to decrease the number, without referendum, prior to January 1995, it should also be reasonable to increase the number to at least 16 councillors. It should be emphasised that we are talking about 15 councillors and one mayor. A few councils with 15 councillors may decide to maintain that number, plus a popular mayor. I think it is more than reasonable to allow those councils to continue with such a composition without a constitutional referendum.

Proposed section 332 provides that a council may not determine a position to be a senior staff position unless it is equivalent to the executive band of the Local Government (State) Award. As mentioned earlier by my colleagues, this amendment does not go far enough. I realise this amendment is necessary because some councils have been putting on to contracts staff whose salary levels would ordinarily fall under an award. That is not fair to those staff members. It is reasonable to suggest that they should be on the executive band. The amendment, as it currently stands, of course, will ensure that if the salary applicable to the position is equivalent to the local government award, staff employed in future will be entitled to privileges under that award.

I should emphasise that, as I see it, the amendment will continue to allow councils to employ lower paid staff on contract. However, unless they are earning at least the executive band of the Local Government (State) Award - which I believe is approximately $70,000 per annum, or $1,100 per week - they will not be classed as senior staff and will enjoy the protection of an award. That is good, but it does not go far enough. As has been pointed out by the honourable member for Coogee, the executive band in local government falls short of the senior executive service provisions for the public service, by approximately $1,500. Under the proposed amendment, public servants who are earning $15,000 more than local government staff will be entitled to the benefits of an award, however local government staff earning $15,000 less will not be so entitled. The Opposition will seek in Committee to amend that provision of the bill to ensure that the salary for senior local government staff is equivalent to at least the lowest salary in the senior executive service.

Another amendment that I understand will be moved - which I heard about only when the honourable member for Coogee was speaking - is aimed at abolition of the minimum rate on company title flats. If that amendment is successful, we will return to the old system that applied before the new Local Government Act came into force. Under that system the minimum rate applied to any residential property divided into flats - whether owned by a company or an individual - where the dwellings are not strata titled. In my view that would be a backward step. Application of the minimum rate would not necessarily mean that every person living in such flats will pay a lesser amount to council. I say that because I do not believe that some councils will be content to charge a very small minimum rate.
Page 2601
Those councils will, as they have in the past, impose additional charges on those flats and units that do not have strata title - charges for garbage, for example - to ensure that the occupants of those dwellings pay an amount similar to the minimum rate paid by their counterparts in strata titled dwellings. That will add an additional burden on council which will have to impose the additional charge. That will burden councils with more administrative responsibilities.

The purpose of the amendment is to appease a bunch of people who are critical of the fact that they are now subject to the minimum rate. I repeat: I do not believe they will pay lower charges to council as a result of this measure. If the councils were to accept such smaller amounts resulting from that provision, to compensate they would have to increase their general rate to such an extent that the majority of ratepayers who are paying the general rate would be very critical. No one will win as a result of this amendment. In fact, councils will lose because of their increased expenditure and work load generally in administering additional charges to ensure that persons living in not strata titled units pay an equitable amount to council.

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Energy, and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives) [11.39], in reply: I should like to reply to a number of points made by honourable members. The honourable member for Coogee referred to what I would probably call the Wollongong and Shellharbour amendment. That amendment relates to an increase in the number of councillors. When the Government circulated the exposure draft of the bill, the number was 13. As a result of deliberations and a vote in this Parliament, the number was increased to 15. However, that number does not suit the politics of the Labor Party. A reduction of the number may affect its stranglehold on certain councils. The Opposition should remember that other councils also will be affected.

The Government opposes the amendment. It is against the trend and philosophy of reducing, rather than increasing, the number of councillors. During debate I informed the honourable member for Coogee that the amendment would affect a small number of councils. He claimed that I am adopting a political approach because one of the amendments I intend to move will only affect Botany Council. In reality, the amendment I propose to move will validate Botany Council, but will affect every council throughout the State. The amendment is not specifically directed to one council.

The other matter I want to refer to is the minimum rate. Honourable members opposite become totally confused when they talk about a poll tax. The Act contains provisions for councils to rate or levy a charge of as much as 50 per cent of its rates as a base rate and the remainder as an ad valorem rate. The elimination of minimum rates would leave a poll tax regime. That is simply not on. The comments of those opposite are designed only to confuse and mislead. For some considerable time members have raised with me concerns about minimum rates having to be approved by me. That delegation was given to me by Parliament under the Act. Those opposite talk about councils having flexibility, yet they say that I, as Minister for Local Government, have to approve the minimum rate of all councils. That is not the principle enunciated by the Local Government Association in its submissions during the initial consultation process.

The association wants councils to have flexibility. I reject the assertion that local government does not support the concept. The Government says that people with the lowest valued properties should have the right and the responsibility to pay an amount towards the amenities provided by local government, but the higher the value the greater the amount to be paid. It is difficult to convey the content of a graph to the House, but under the minimum rate regime one gets a slight increase to a midpoint, and a rapid increase in the rates at the tail end for the higher valued properties. Under a base rate of up to 50 per cent, the amount to be determined by the council ad valorem using its own modelling, one will find a more even increase from the lower valued properties to the higher valued properties. That concept reflects a far better model for councils and their constituents.

Mr E. T. Page: That graph is completely spurious.

Mr WEST: It is not. Under the minimum rate, once a particular valuation point is reached, the rate assessment will increase more rapidly. When the honourable member for Bligh indicated that she was prepared to support the change, I reminded her that she had voted to put minimum rating back into the Act. She said, quite rightly, that it was a big bill. The Government has always said that changes will have to be made if it is found that certain decisions were wrong. She said to me that she thought that decision was wrong and was prepared to support the change. That is the basis on which I have put the amendment before the House. The House will resolve the problem. If the majority of the House says, "No", the situation will remain as it is. I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! With the consent of the Committee, the Chair will permit the moving of amendments in globo.

Schedule 1

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Energy, and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives) [11.45]: I move:

No. 1 Page 2, Schedule 1, line 26. After "meeting", insert "of the council or such a committee".

No. 2 Page 2, Schedule 1, lines 29 and 30. Omit "or committee concerned".

Page 2602

These amendments make it clear that only a council and not a committee has the power to authorise the presiding officer of a committee to expel a person from a meeting. The committee may still resolve at a meeting to expel a person. The amendments clarify a principle on which I believe all honourable members agree.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Schedule 3

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [11.47]: I move the following amendment standing in the name of the honourable member for Manly:

No. 2 Page 10, Schedule 3, lines 23 on page 10 to line 10 on page 11. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(11) Section 142 (Orders affecting heritage items):

After section 142(5), insert:

(6) This section does not apply to order No. 2, 15, 16 or 17 in the Table to section 124 if given by a council in an emergency.

Explanatory note

The proposed amendment will exempt a council, in an emergency, from the requirement to consult with the Heritage Council before it gives certain kinds of orders in respect of items of the environmental heritage.

I strongly support the amendment. The amendment will allow the Heritage Council to exempt a local council from notifying the Heritage Council of developments affecting areas on the Register of the National Estate or areas to which an order under the Heritage Act 1977 applies. A local council will not have to consider submissions from the Heritage Council. This power is general and the amendment does not specify under what conditions such a power may be exercised. If, for example, the Heritage Council were starved of funds by the Government, to reduce its workload it might exempt councils from involving it in important heritage work. That would have a disastrous effect on the preservation of the State's heritage. The Heritage Council should be involved in decisions affecting our special environmental heritage items. Honourable members should not support a backdoor provision that allows the Government to escape its responsibility. For seven years I was a member of South Sydney Council and Sydney City Council. In those forums the whole issue of heritage was of vital significance and was the subject of constant battles to prevent the destruction of our past. Having been involved in many such battles over the years, I appreciate the importance of this amendment. I seek the support of the House for it.

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Energy, and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives) [11.49]: The Government opposes the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bligh. I ask honourable members to bear in mind the reasons for this amendment. It was formulated after extensive consultation with the Heritage Council and will apply in emergency situations only. It provides that a council is not required to notify the Heritage Council or to consider subsequent submissions from the Heritage Council before placing certain orders. If there were such requirements, they could undermine a council's ability to act quickly and effectively in emergencies. The emergencies relate to the likes of dirty food premises or the demolition of a building, requiring advance consultation. The Government did not approach the Heritage Council; the council approached us and said, "The provision is not working. We want it tidied up". That is how the amendment came about. If the Government were badgering the Heritage Council, the honourable member for Bligh would be right to be concerned. But the fact that the Heritage Council sought the consultation does not support the concerns expressed by the honourable member for Bligh.

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [11.50]: That position was put to the Independents at the Government briefing and I questioned it at that time because of my background on the Sydney City Council. Can the Minister give examples of such emergencies? I could not estimate the number of times I have been called out on a Saturday morning to deal with demolishers on the streets not only causing extreme danger to residents but destroying our heritage, before there was a chance to put an order on it. The Heritage Council should be more involved to ensure that such Saturday morning demolitions or threats to our heritage do not occur. It sounds rather extraordinary, and I was not satisfied with the Government briefing on this matter.

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Energy, and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives) [11.51]: I am advised that one of the two best examples of an emergency relate to dirty food premises. If that capacity to move quickly is not available, the evidence disappears. The other example is more important because it relates to the loss of our heritage buildings. If the amendment of the honourable member for Bligh is carried, by the time consultation has taken place the council could have demolished a building. The Government's amendment will protect the heritage building in an emergency: it will enable the Heritage Council to move in and stop the council proceeding without having to go through the consultation process. If the Heritage Council must go through the consultation process, the heritage building could be demolished during that process. That is the very reason the Heritage Council is saying it is important to have this provision in the bill.

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [11.52]: As a city councillor who has battled to save our heritage for many years, this is a really important issue. I have often thought that the Heritage Council did not have enough powers. The greatest defender of our heritage has been the National Trust. I am gravely concerned about the Heritage Council exempting a local council from having to notify it of developments regarding property on the Register of the National Estate. From
Page 2603
my experience in local government and my close contact with not only my council but a range of councils through the Local Government Association, I do not believe that authority should be delegated to remove items from the Register of the National Estate.

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Energy, and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives) [11.53]: If a council has an application from a private developer, a third party, proposing to demolish a building, the Act requires that the council consult with the Heritage Council. The Government amendments will allow a local council to stop the developer or a private owner from demolishing a building without consultation. If the council has to take the time to consult with the Heritage Council before it issues that order, the building will be lost.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee) [11.54]: The reverse situation would also apply if the council were developer driven because discretion rests with that council. It has occurred that a council that does not take a strong stand on heritage buildings agrees with the developer that the building can be demolished, whereas the committee believes that the building should be retained.

Ms Moore: Constantly. It is a constant battle. We are out there on Saturday mornings with orders, taking on demolishers.

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Energy, and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives) [11.55]: The Heritage Council knows which councils are developer run and would not grant the exemption to such councils. I know it is an emotional matter for the honourable member for Bligh. It is an emotional matter for me, too - for all of us. This country has to maintain its heritage buildings. These amendments will save our heritage buildings rather than give people the opportunity to demolish them more quickly.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Schedule 5

Mr HARRISON (Kiama) [11.56]: I wish to speak on what the Minister almost jokingly referred to as the Wollongong amendment.

Mr West: It is a Shellharbour one, too, is it?

Mr HARRISON: Not only Wollongong but Shellharbour, but there is the potential for a small number of other councils in the State to be caught by this measure. When the Minister spoke in reply at the second reading I felt that he had not taken on board what had been said during the second reading debate. I reiterate that it is most desirable that councils have an uneven number of elected representatives, in the same way that it is desirable that a Federal or State Parliament have an uneven number of representatives. The council that has wards and 15 councillors and wishes to maintain an uneven number of councillors has limited options: it would have to reduce its number of councillors to nine in one fell swoop because 10, 12 and 14 are even numbers, and 11 and 13 are not divisible by anything for setting up wards.

The Labor Party, which has supported the Government on the maximum number of councillors on the local council with one exception, is not asking the Government for a huge concession. The amendment does not have the potential to affect any more councils than are already affected because they are constrained to keep their numbers within 15. One aspect of this matter has not been canvassed, and I should like the Minister to respond to my question because I have not heard an explanation of it anywhere. A council that has wards of three and decides to reduce the number of councillors to nine - to comply with the Government's wishes to have smaller councils - decides to retain an uneven number of councillors and to maintain the ward system. A candidate for mayor, who also stands as a candidate for council, tops the poll in both elections. When he is elected as mayor he is automatically excluded from being elected as a councillor. Where do his number one votes go? Do his number two votes become number one votes? Do his number three votes become number two votes? Do his number four votes become number three votes?

There is politics in local councils. That might not suit the wishes of everyone, but it is a fact of life. In many council elections there is a Labor ticket running and perhaps there are one or two Independents running as well. The fourth person may not be consistent with, say, two people who were elected from the Labor side or from the Independent side. The fourth person may represent a different group of people - another Independent ticket, or it may even be someone off the Labor ticket. That can change the whole complexion of a council; it can mean the difference between whether a council is five-four in favour of Labor or five-four in favour of the Independents. That has not been explained. I am pleased that the Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives has consulted his advisers on this aspect. It needs to be explained.

This anomaly can occur. It will change the composition of the council - whether it is a Labor majority council or an Independent majority council. People will possibly be elected on number four votes, where number one votes have disappeared into space. That matter adds great weight to our suggestion that councils in a ward system should be permitted to maintain an uneven number of representatives - 15 councillors. I refer to situations in which there would be the addition of a mayor popularly elected across the whole local government area. I ask the Minister to take this matter on board; I know he has. I ask him to respond sympathetically to this matter to ensure that the anomaly is addressed.

Page 2604

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Energy, and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives) [12.2]: The details that the honourable member for Kiama is asking for - he has not moved any amendment at this stage - are contained already in regulations. I do not have the details of those regulations with me now, but I am happy to prepare a response for the honourable member and give it to him at another time so that he can draw it to the attention of his colleagues.

Mr HARRISON (Kiama) [12.3]: I move:

No. 1 Page 13, Schedule 5. After line 32, insert:

(3) Section 224 (How many councillors does a council have?):

After section 224(1), insert:

(1A) However, a council that is divided into wards and that has a mayor elected by the electors may have up to 16 councillors (one of whom is the mayor).

(1B) Any reference in this Act (subsection (1) excepted) to 15 councillors is taken to be a reference to 16 councillors in its application to a council referred to in subsection (1A).

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Energy, and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives) [12.4]: It is not very difficult to postulate why the Opposition has put forward this amendment - in fact, the honourable member for Kiama alluded to the politics of it earlier. This amendment would allow some councils with a popularly elected mayor to increase their numbers from 15 to 16. It is difficult to understand the rationale that has been applied by the Opposition to reach its recommendation - although I realise that the majority of the recommendations that emanate from that side of the House suffer from the same affliction. As I recall, when this House debated the Local Government Bill in 1993, the Opposition insisted that the maximum number of councillors be 15. The Opposition is now suggesting another change. In 1993 the Government advanced cogent reasons to support a maximum of 13 councillors. The Government is still of the view that any greater number would be undesirable and that smaller councils should be encouraged.

There is no evidence that larger numbers of elected members are needed. We can achieve the same result by simply reducing the numbers in the wards. It is obvious that the Opposition wants to keep its numbers up. Section 29(3) of the transitional provisions of the Local Government Act provides that councils that are divided into wards, and have a popularly elected mayor, will have to reduce the number of their non-mayoral councillors to 14 - or lower - by 1 September 1994. I will move an amendment to extend that date to 1 March 1995. If that amendment is accepted, council members after that date will be reduced to a maximum of 15, despite the amendment put forward by the Opposition. I cannot support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kiama.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Ms Allan Mr Markham
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Mr Mills
Mr A. S. Aquilina Ms Moore
Mr J. J. Aquilina Mr Moss
Mr Bowman Mr Neilly
Mr Crittenden Mr Newman
Mr Doyle Ms Nori
Mr Face Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gaudry Mr Price
Mr Gibson Dr Refshauge
Mr Harrison Mr Rogan
Mr Hunter Mr Scully
Mr Iemma Mr Shedden
Mr Irwin Mr Sullivan
Mr Knight Mr Thompson
Mr Knowles Mr Whelan
Mr Langton Mr Yeadon
Mrs Lo Po'
Mr McBride Tellers,
Dr Macdonald Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Davoren

Mr Armstrong Mr W. T. J. Murray
Mr Baird Mr O'Doherty
Mr Beck Mr D. L. Page
Mr Causley Mr Petch
Mr Chappell Mr Phillips
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Photios
Mr Cochran Mr Richardson
Mr Collins Mr Rixon
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rozzoli
Mr Debnam Mr Schipp
Mr Fraser Mr Schultz
Mr Glachan Mrs Skinner
Mr Griffiths Mr Small
Mr Hartcher Mr Smith
Mr Hatton Mr Souris
Mr Hazzard Mr Tink
Mr Humpherson Mr West
Dr Kernohan Mr Windsor
Mr Kinross Mr Zammit
Mr Longley Tellers,
Mr Merton Mr Jeffery
Mr Morris Mr Kerr

Mr Carr Mr Blackmore
Mr Clough Mrs Cohen
Mrs Grusovin Mr Downy
Mr J. H. Murray Mr Fahey
Mr Nagle Ms Machin
Mr Rumble Mr Peacocke

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Page 2605

Schedule 7

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee) [12.12]: During the second reading debate I stated the Opposition's position. The system of employment in the State Government senior executive service is very regulated. A lot of thought has been given to the components of the package. There has been consistency in maintaining the high income level. At the moment level 1 involves about $88,000. It is alleged that the scheme has been transferred into the local government area - but in name only. To date there has been no real restriction on the lower limit for people appointed by councils to the equivalent of SES positions. This has caused many industrial and salary problems for people, particularly in country areas. The Government intends to ally the positions with those in the executive band of the local government State award, but this does not really make this situation comparable with the State senior executive service. We propose to move an amendment that will provide that the total remuneration package for someone in local government appointed to an SES band will be equal to or greater than the minimum remuneration package of senior executive officeholders whose positions are graded Level 1 - General Management.

In country areas the general manager would be the only one at this level, and in metropolitan areas four or five people might be at this level. Some councils have as many as 20 people in the equivalent of the SES band. This has put many employees, particularly those in country areas, at a particular disadvantage. Their jobs have been advertised at $10,000 less than the negotiated rate. The rate these employees are on at the moment was not pulled out of the air; it was the basis of negotiation between the Local Government and Shires Association and the unions. The rates have relevance across the State and to the particular employment works in local government bodies. The appropriate salary level has been determined in accordance with quite a sophisticated system. Some councils have used the SES system to override the industrial rights of a significant number of people. At present employees in the SES band have no industrial rights. They have no right of appeal if they are dismissed. This puts them in a bad position. The amendment will tighten up the concept which the Government supports and provide employment parallel with the SES system. The amendment also articulates what is included in the package. This is not spelt out at the moment. I think it is reasonable that when an SES package has been negotiated above the level of $88,000 it should be clear to the parties involved what sorts of things are up for negotiation. I move:

No. 2 Page 16, Schedule 7, lines 27 and 28. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(b) the total remuneration package payable with respect to the position is equal to or greater than the minimum remuneration package (within the meaning of Part 3A of the Statutory and Other Offices Remuneration Act 1975) payable with respect to senior executive office holders whose positions are graded Level 1 (General Management).

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b), the total remuneration package payable with respect to a position within a council's organisation structure includes:

(a) the total value of the salary component of the package; and

(b) the total amount payable by the council by way of the employer's contribution to any superannuation scheme to which the holder of the position may be a contributor; and

(c) the total value of any non-cash benefits for which the holder of the position may elect under the package; and

(d) the total amount payable by the council by way of fringe benefits tax for any such non-cash benefits.

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Energy, and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives) [12.18]: The Government opposes the amendment. The Government, by way of its amendments, proposes to use a regulation to specify matters such as the remuneration appropriate to define a senior officer. By going to regulation we have to go through an extensive regulatory impact statement process. That is the way in which we will get that more detailed consultation, rather than setting the arbitrary figure the Australian Labor Party amendment does in its amendment. The level suggested by the Australian Labor Party is far too high and would exclude all senior managers except for those in the largest councils. We have to be very careful with this. Many councils will not fit into the band. It is also inappropriate to link the remuneration level to that applying to senior executive officers of the State public sector. The functions and responsibilities of local government managers are not the same. The regulation-making process will ensure that all people with an interest in this matter are afforded the opportunity to comment on the most appropriate level to use to classify senior officers. Consultations have already been undertaken with the unions and council associations on this very issue and there is no doubt that the current definition of senior staff is causing a problem and that the current salary entry point is too low at around $42,000 per annum.

The department has been developing a sensible proposal with the unions and other associations. The Government's proposal is to leave the ultimate decision to the regulation process rather than make a specific designation in legislation. The setting of a fixed designation would mean that, because of salary shift, legislation would have to be amended frequently. It is much more sensible to provide for the regulation process. The Government's proposal would enable a reasonable figure of about $65,000 to $70,000 to be considered and adjusted for future movements in salaries. It is important that it be possible to make adjustments. It is still necessary to go through a consultative process. Consultation is a provision of the regulatory impact statement process, and I know that the honourable member for Murrumbidgee will make sure that consultation is held. It is my belief that the Government's proposal will achieve the result desired by both sides of the House and the unions, without locking a specific figure into the legislation.

Page 2606

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee) [12.22]: The amendment concerns a matter of principle. In this issue government by regulation would be a pretty poor option. On many occasions the Chairman of the Regulation Review Committee has expressed concerns about the regulations that his committee is required to appraise. The Minister has said that an arbitrary assessment is inappropriate. I am not suggesting that an arbitrary assessment be made; I am suggesting adoption of the scheme used for the senior executive service, an extensive scheme that is constantly under review. That scheme has been developed over four years and sets a minimum salary. If it is logical for the State senior executive service to come within that scheme, there is no reason that the local government senior executive service should not also come within that scheme.

The Minister has said that there is no real correlation of responsibilities between the State senior executive service and local government. In a sense, that is true. However, a general manager of a $60 million or a $70 million organisation and those under the manager could well be expected to have more responsibilities than a State government employee who has responsibility for a specific technical area. It is not correct to say that local government and State government employees have different responsibilities so therefore there is no correlation between them. There are differences within the State senior executive service yet the employment of State government employees is handled on a consistent basis. Different levels of remuneration take account of differences in positions. The same provision could apply to the local government senior executive service. The Minister's argument is not convincing and I ask that he reconsider his position.

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Energy, and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives) [12.25]: The adoption of a figure as high as level 1 of the senior executive service could force up the level of senior officer salaries in councils. Anyone surveying local government advertising would realise that a significant number of jobs would fall between the proposals of the Government and those of the Opposition. The honourable member for Coogee referred to the adoption of level 1 of the State senior executive service -

Mr E. T. Page: As a minimum.

Mr WEST: Yes, as a minimum. The levels applicable to the senior executive service are not contained in legislation but are set by determination. The honourable member for Coogee wants to set a level by way of legislation. It is proper to set levels of remuneration by way of regulation. The regulatory impact statement process forces the Government to undertake a consultative process. Proposals are considered by the Regulation Review Committee and this Parliament then gets the chance to examine them. As I have said, the Government and the Opposition are trying to reach the same result, but the Government does not want to lock specific figures into legislation.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee) [12.26]: The Minister's claim that the Opposition amendment, if adopted, would force up local government salaries is untrue. Whether or not the measure is accepted, it will have no effect on the ability of a council to determine what it will pay a staff member. A variety of factors such as the award structure, the difficulty experienced in finding someone to fill a position and geographic isolation affect the determination of a local government employee's salary. Councils determine what they pay their staff, and nothing contained in my amendment will affect the amount that an individual council will be required to pay any employee. I did not suggest that senior executive service levels are established in statute. The senior executive service has an acknowledged and accepted system of remuneration. The Government should acknowledge the parallel between State employees and local government employees. It uses the same terminology, senior executive service, when referring to both State and local government employees.

Problems have arisen. Long-term council employees have had their industrial rights taken away from them. It is incumbent on this Parliament to protect the rights of those who have been put in a weakened position because of a revamp of the legislation under which they work. The Minister is wrong when he says that the Opposition's proposal will affect salaries - it is salary neutral. It is up to individual councils to determine the salaries they pay to their employees. Because the Government has acknowledged the senior executive service as the model for the remuneration structure of top echelon local government employees, it is reasonable to assume that the parallel should be extended to other employees.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Ms Allan Mr McManus
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Mr Mills
Mr A. S. Aquilina Ms Moore
Mr J. J. Aquilina Mr Moss
Mr Bowman Mr J. H. Murray
Mr Crittenden Mr Nagle
Mr Doyle Mr Neilly
Mr Face Mr Newman
Mr Gaudry Ms Nori
Mr Gibson Mr E. T. Page
Mr Harrison Mr Price
Mr Hatton Mr Rogan
Mr Hunter Mr Scully
Mr Iemma Mr Shedden
Mr Irwin Mr Sullivan
Mr Knight Mr Thompson
Mr Knowles Mr Whelan
Mr Langton Mr Yeadon
Mrs Lo Po' Tellers,
Mr McBride Mr Beckroge
Dr Macdonald Mr Davoren

Page 2607

Mr Armstrong Mr O'Doherty
Mr Baird Mr D. L. Page
Mr Beck Mr Petch
Mr Causley Mr Phillips
Mr Chappell Mr Photios
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson
Mr Cochran Mr Rixon
Mr Collins Mr Rozzoli
Mr Cruickshank Mr Schipp
Mr Debnam Mr Schultz
Mr Fraser Mrs Skinner
Mr Glachan Mr Small
Mr Griffiths Mr Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Souris
Mr Hazzard Mr Tink
Mr Humpherson Mr West
Dr Kernohan Mr Windsor
Mr Kinross Mr Zammit
Mr Longley
Mr Merton Tellers,
Mr Morris Mr Jeffery
Mr W. T. J. Murray Mr Kerr

Mr Carr Mr Blackmore
Mr Clough Mrs Cohen
Mrs Grusovin Mr Downy
Mr Markham Mr Fahey
Dr Refshauge Ms Machin
Mr Rumble Mr Peacocke

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Schedule 13

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [12.36]: I move amendment No. 3 standing in my name:

No. 3 Page 34, Schedule 13, lines 9-16. Omit all words on those lines.

The Government's proposed amendment to section 675 poses a serious attack on the public's right to information and its access to the legal process.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I call the honourable member for Wollongong to order. I call the honourable member for The Entrance to order.

Dr MACDONALD: At present, a notice of the relevant approval must be "in the manner and form prescribed by the regulations". The Government's amendment provides that it be "in the approved form". If approval is subject to a regulation process, that leads directly to the rights of the community to take legal proceedings.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I call the honourable member for Swansea to order. I call the honourable member for Waratah to order.

Dr MACDONALD: A regulation is a legal document. The Government proposes that the notice of approval be in the vacuous "in the approved form". Such an approved form will have little or no legal standing. It will be easily changed without using the regulation-making process. As well, there will not be an opportunity for parliamentary review through the Regulation Review Committee. By retaining the regulation process, public rights will be better protected.

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Energy, and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives) [12.37]: The honourable member for Manly is reading more into this than is there. The amendment simplifies the form that is required. The implementation committee said that the form was too complicated and wanted it reviewed. That is what we have done. I suggest that the honourable member for Manly is reading far too much into it.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Ms Allan Mr Markham
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Mr Mills
Mr A. S. Aquilina Ms Moore
Mr J. J. Aquilina Mr Moss
Mr Bowman Mr J. H. Murray
Mr Crittenden Mr Nagle
Mr Face Mr Neilly
Mr Gaudry Mr Newman
Mr Gibson Ms Nori
Mr Harrison Mr E. T. Page
Mr Hatton Mr Price
Mr Hunter Mr Rogan
Mr Iemma Mr Scully
Mr Irwin Mr Shedden
Mr Knight Mr Sullivan
Mr Knowles Mr Thompson
Mr Langton Mr Whelan
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Yeadon
Mr McBride Tellers,
Dr Macdonald Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Davoren

Mr Armstrong Mr O'Doherty
Mr Baird Mr D. L. Page
Mr Beck Mr Petch
Mr Causley Mr Phillips
Mr Chappell Mr Photios
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson
Mr Cochran Mr Rixon
Mr Collins Mr Rozzoli
Mr Cruickshank Mr Schipp
Mr Debnam Mr Schultz
Mr Fraser Mrs Skinner
Mr Glachan Mr Small
Mr Griffiths Mr Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Souris
Mr Hazzard Mr Tink
Mr Humpherson Mr West
Dr Kernohan Mr Windsor
Mr Kinross Mr Zammit
Mr Longley
Mr Merton Tellers,
Mr Morris Mr Jeffery
Mr W. T. J. Murray Mr Kerr

Page 2608

Mr Carr Mr Blackmore
Mr Clough Mrs Cohen
Mr Doyle Mr Downy
Mrs Grusovin Mr Fahey
Dr Refshauge Ms Machin
Mr Rumble Mr Peacocke

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Energy, and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives) [12.45]: I move:

No. 3 Page 36, Schedule 13. After line 33, insert:

(8) In this section, a reference to an authorised person extends to a member of a surf lifesaving organisation who is authorised by the council concerned to exercise the functions conferred on an authorised person by this section, but so extends only with respect to an item of water-based recreational equipment that is being used in contravention of the provisions of a notice referred to in section 633.

(9) A council is liable for the acts and omissions of a member of a surf life saving organisation who is an authorised person by virtue of subsection (8) as if the member were an employee of the council.

The amendment will provide that surf life saving organisations are authorised to exercise functions under the confiscation rules that are being put in place.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Schedule 15

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Energy, and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives) [12.46]: I move:

No. 4 Page 38, Schedule 15. After line 33, insert:

The exercise by authorised persons (including persons who are authorised persons by virtue of section 681A(8)) of the functions conferred on an authorised person by or under this Act.

[Note: the Explanatory note relating to item (2) of Schedule 15 should be amended so as to insert after "public land" the words "and with respect to the exercise of functions by authorised persons".]

This amendment is consequential upon amendment No. 3.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Schedule 16

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Energy, and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives) [12.47]: I move:

No. 5 Page 41, Schedule 16. After line 6, insert:

(3) Action may be taken by a council under this clause whether or not a vacancy has arisen in the office of any of its councillors.

The amendment relates to the process of reducing the number of councillors, and requires a council with a vacancy to consider the question of its size.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee) [12.48]: This amendment has been included principally because Botany Council has agreed to reduce the number of its councillors from 15 to seven. Two vacancies have now arisen and it would be impractical to hold two by-elections now and then shed eight positions in 18 months' time. The Opposition will support the amendment.

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Energy, and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives) [12.48]: I thank the honourable member for Coogee for his support. This amendment was a late inclusion at the request of Botany Council in order to validate something in the nature of an emergency. It will, of course, flow through to other councils.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee) [12.49]: I move amendments Nos 3 and 4 circulated in my name:

No. 3 Page 40, Schedule 16, line 28. Omit "Clause 26A:", insert instead "Clauses 26A, 26B:".

No. 4 Page 41, Schedule 16. After line 6, insert:

Increase in numbers of councillors in councils with less than 15 councillors

26B. (1) This clause does not apply to a council of an area with less than 100,000 electors.

(2) A council with less than 15 councillors at the commencement of section 224 may, before 1 January 1995, prepare a draft resolution, in accordance with section 224(1), determining that it will have one (but not more than one) additional councillor for the following term.

(3) In addition, that or another draft resolution prepared before 1 January 1995 may contain provisions for any of the following:

(a) dividing its area into wards;

(b) abolishing all wards;

(c) altering ward boundaries;

(d) naming or renaming a ward.

Amendment No. 3 is purely technical. Amendment No. 4 basically concerns Sutherland Shire Council. I pay tribute to the former Minister for Local Government, who I understand is overseas. It is a pity that he is not in the House to listen to my accolade. However, his handling of the relocation of councillors and ridings in the Sutherland shire could not be justified. The shire had three ridings, each of which had five members. Despite all community opinion, the Liberal Party group in the area wanted seven ridings with two councillors each. It believed that under such a system it could sweep the pool. The significance is that when three or more councillors are to be elected, the election is conducted under the proportional representation system, and elections conducted on that basis often lead to the election of Independents.

If the preferential system is used, a party group will normally get more than 50 per cent of the vote and will win all the positions on the ballot-paper. That is particularly so in metropolitan areas. Independent candidates are virtually never successful in that situation. They do not have cohesive support
Page 2609
groups and are disadvantaged by the preferential system. At the previous election in Sutherland shire, five councillors were elected under the proportional representation system and a cross-sectional representation was achieved. The system introduced by the previous Minister of seven wards with two councillors each involves preferential voting. By and large the group that receives more than 50 per cent of the vote will get the two positions. The Liberals thought that system would allow them to sweep the council elections. As it turned out, a coalition of Labor and Independents did not allow that to happen. However, the system is not democratic. The amendment seeks to increase the number of councillors in Sutherland shire from 14 to 15 to ensure that the shire returns to a ward system allowing multiple representation. That will allow a cross-sectional representation by the two major parties - Labor and Liberal - and Independents. One of the aberrations of the preferential system is that by and large it actively discriminates against Independents.

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Energy, and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives) [12.52]: As the amendment clearly indicates, it applies to councils with 100,000 or more electors. The Government is trying to increase efficiency in local government by controlling the number of councillors making decisions and drawing on the public payroll. Everyone knows the truth behind the old saying "Too many cooks spoil the broth". That is happening to some extent in the Opposition at the moment. Although the amendment appears to allow councils with fewer than 15 councillors to increase the number, the application of amendment No. 3 will mean that this provision will apply to councils with fewer than 16 councillors. Therefore the Government cannot support the amendments, and will divide the Committee.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee) [12.53]: The suggestion is that the number will increase to 15, so it is within the numerical limit determined by this Parliament about 12 months ago. Had it not been for the unnecessary and completely unsupportable intrusion by the former Minister, this situation would not have arisen. The amendments are designed to address an anomaly created by the former Minister. As the Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives correctly said, the amendments relate to councils with 100,000 or more electors. Undoubtedly councils, particularly large councils, create a heavy workload for councillors. Life generally is becoming far more complicated, and a great deal more regulation and legislation impinges upon the work of local government. Councillors must be better equipped than previously, and are subject to more community demands. In my view there is nothing wrong with having 15 councillors rather than seven or eight. It makes much more sense for larger councils to have a larger number of councillors. The amendment will give Independent councillors an opportunity to take their legitimate places on Sutherland Shire Council. I seek the support of the Chamber for my amendments.

Question - That the amendments be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Ms Allan Mr Martin
Mr Amery Mr Mills
Mr Anderson Ms Moore
Mr A. S. Aquilina Mr Moss
Mr Bowman Mr Nagle
Mr Crittenden Mr Neilly
Mr Doyle Mr Newman
Mr Gaudry Ms Nori
Mr Gibson Mr E. T. Page
Mr Harrison Mr Price
Mr Hunter Mr Rogan
Mr Iemma Mr Scully
Mr Irwin Mr Shedden
Mr Knight Mr Sullivan
Mr Knowles Mr Thompson
Mr Langton Mr Whelan
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Yeadon
Mr McBride
Dr Macdonald Tellers,
Mr McManus Mr Beckroge
Mr Markham Mr Davoren

Mr Armstrong Mr D. L. Page
Mr Beck Mr Petch
Mr Causley Mr Phillips
Mr Chappell Mr Photios
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson
Mr Cochran Mr Rixon
Mr Collins Mr Rozzoli
Mr Cruickshank Mr Schipp
Mr Debnam Mr Schultz
Mr Fraser Mrs Skinner
Mr Glachan Mr Small
Mr Griffiths Mr Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Souris
Mr Hazzard Mr Tink
Mr Humpherson Mr West
Dr Kernohan Mr Windsor
Mr Kinross Mr Zammit
Mr Merton
Mr Morris Tellers,
Mr W. T. J. Murray Mr Jeffery
Mr O'Doherty Mr Kerr

Mr J. J. Aquilina Mr Baird
Mr Carr Mr Blackmore
Mr Clough Mrs Cohen
Mr Face Mr Downy
Mrs Grusovin Mr Fahey
Mr J. H. Murray Mr Longley
Dr Refshauge Ms Machin
Mr Rumble Mr Peacocke

Page 2610

The CHAIRMAN: The numbers being equal, I give my casting vote with the noes and declare the question to have passed in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

Amendments by Mr West agreed to:

No. 6 Page 41, Schedule 16. After line 20, insert:

(6) A resolution under subclause (5) must be made within 5 months after the vacancy occurs and, in the case of a vacancy that arose before the commencement of this subclause and in respect of which a by-election has been called, before the closing date for the by-election.

(7) For the purposes of applying this Division, the period of 3 months referred to in section 292 is taken to commence, not from the date on which the vacancy occurs, but from:

(a) the date that is 5 months after:

(i) the date on which the vacancy occurs; or

(ii) the commencement of this subclause, in the case of a vacancy that arose before the commencement of this subclause,

if the council has not passed a resolution under subclause (5) within the 5-month period; or

(b) the date on which the Minister declines to approve a draft resolution of the council as referred to in subclause (2); or

(c) the date on which the council resolves that it will not seek or will no longer seek, under this Division, to reduce the number of councillors, whichever is the earliest.

(8) The commencement date ascertained in accordance with subclause (7) is taken, for the purposes of section 294, to be the date on which the vacancy occurred.

No. 7 Page 41, Schedule 16. After line 31, insert:

Validation

30B.(1) Any thing done before the commencement of an amendment made to this Division by the Local Government Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1994 that would, had the provision as so amended been in force when the thing was done or purported to be done, have been valid is validated.

(2) Botany Council is taken to have validly prepared a draft resolution under this Division to reduce the number of its councillors to 7 (one of whom is the mayor), the Minister is taken to have approved the draft resolution under this Division without any amendments and no by-election is required to fill a vacancy that occurred before the commencement of this clause.

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Energy, and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives) [1.6]: I move:

No. 8 Page 42, Schedule 16. After line 36, insert:

(17) Clause 55A:

After clause 55, insert:

Temporary operation of section 548

55A. (1) Section 548 ceases to have effect on 1 July 1995.

(2) This clause does not affect the operation of section 548 in respect of the period before 1 July 1995 or anything done in accordance with that section during that period.

As has clearly been signalled by considerable debate at the second reading stage, this amendment will remove the capacity to charge a minimum rate. It is proposed that the amendment, if carried, will not apply until 1 July 1995 allowing councils 12 months to revise their rating model and get it right. If the amendment is carried, I would ask councils to take cognisance of the concerns expressed by some of my Government colleagues and the honourable member for Bligh that minimum rates will have an impact on certain people in the community. I will write to councils, drawing that to their attention and asking them to use other provisions of the Local Government Act to reduce the impact of the introduction of minimum rates on the people so affected.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee) [1.7]: I addressed this issue in some detail during the second reading debate. The basis of the new Local Government Act was consensus - discussion within the community, consultation, reference to peak bodies, reference to other local government bodies and input from councillors - which the former Minister followed very well. The Opposition was notified only yesterday of this amendment, the Local Government and Shires Associations was not notified and not one local council body or council was notified. The amendment was drawn up without any consultation. It is abhorrent and obnoxious.

The basis of the Act was to give councils maximum options for decision-making, to set the framework and let the councils decide. This amendment will remove from councils an option that a number have previously taken advantage of. Minimum rating has a long history; it goes back many decades. Many councils have followed that option. The Government is now unilaterally saying, "We believe in giving you maximum say in what you are doing, but this is an option you will no longer have". The Labor Party opposes the amendment.

Mr MOSS (Canterbury) [1.9]: The amendment is a backward step. It seeks to abolish the minimum rate on buildings with non-strata title residential flats. It takes us back to the old Local Government Act that was in force prior to the proclamation of the new Act last year. As a result of this provision councils will have to impose additional charges on the occupants of non-residential -

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I call the honourable member for Blacktown to order.

Mr MOSS: Councils will have to impose additional charges on the occupants of non-strata buildings to elevate their overall payments to a level that is comparable with those made by other ratepayers.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I call the honourable member for Murrumbidgee to order.

Mr MOSS: It would be convenient for the Government to say, "We abolished the minimum rate". It could then say to the occupants of non-strata dwellings, "We tried to help you out. We saw to it that you did not have to pay this fee. If you are being required to pay the same charges to the council that are being paid by occupants of strata title properties, that is because the council imposed additional charges on you". Councils will have to impose additional charges. If they do not, the shortfall will result in those paying the highest rates having to pay more.
Page 2611
Today the Minister held up a graph and said, "It means there will be a more equal share of the rate burden across the board". That is not so.

The very graph the Minister held up shows that those who are now paying the lower rates - not those in strata title buildings but those in non-strata buildings - will be paying less. It follows that if those people pay less, the people paying the higher rates will have to pay more so that the council's overall income will not decrease. The amendment is ridiculous. It is a backward step for local government. We would be going back to the stage where a council, in order to achieve a reasonable level of income from property-owners in non-strata buildings - who receive the same benefits from the council as residents of strata buildings and people on individual blocks of land - would have to impose additional charges on those residents. There will be more pressure on councils to impose additional charges and consequently further burdens on the administrative side of local government.

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [1.13]: Today we are amending the Local Government Act. Honourable members will remember the mammoth debate and all the work that went into that huge bill. At the time members were conceding that problems could be revealed after its implementation requiring amendments of that legislation further down the track. Of course, that is what we are doing today. One matter that came out of the new Act was of great concern to many of my constituents, most of whom are older people on fixed incomes, living in company title buildings. The new Act resulted in huge increases in rates; in some cases increases of up to 400 per cent were imposed on ratepayers, predominantly older people. They became quite distressed about this. Meetings were held. I wrote to the Minister for Energy and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives, and then raised the matter in this House. Last week there was a deputation.

I asked the Minister to include in this amending bill some measures to try to restore justice to this particularly disadvantaged group in the lower property value area. The Minister has responded. When we talk about the base rate rather than the minimum rate we are talking about advantaging people who are in properties of low value. They will be advantaged as a result of this amendment. It will not come into force for a year. Obviously, during that time, there will be an opportunity for further debate. If necessary, there could be even further amendments of the Act in the budget session if the Minister responds to that need. I am grateful that he has taken this action at this time. I take this opportunity to thank him for that. I know that the people who were distressed will be particularly grateful. I urge the Minister to make very strong representations to South Sydney Council to set the rate in a way that is responsive to the needs of the area, which that council certainly did not do this time around.

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Energy, and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives) [1.15]: I acknowledge the position the honourable member for Bligh has taken, having voted for it last year. She has considered the ramifications of the bill. She is now prepared to put forward a proposition and work with the Government on this. I reiterate the commitment: if changes become necessary because of the modelling that will go on, I will be prepared to consider them. I will attempt to fine-tune the legislation, if that is necessary. That is the best way to approach it. There were mammoth changes and fine-tuning brought about by the Local Government Act. We will continue that fine-tuning. I will respond to the request of the honourable member for Bligh that I write to South Sydney Council - I will be writing to all councils.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Armstrong Mr O'Doherty
Mr Beck Mr D. L. Page
Mr Causley Mr Petch
Mr Chappell Mr Phillips
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Photios
Mr Cochran Mr Richardson
Mr Collins Mr Rixon
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rozzoli
Mr Debnam Mr Schipp
Mr Fraser Mr Schultz
Mr Glachan Mrs Skinner
Mr Griffiths Mr Small
Mr Hartcher Mr Smith
Mr Hazzard Mr Souris
Mr Humpherson Mr Tink
Dr Kernohan Mr West
Mr Kinross Mr Windsor
Mr Merton Mr Zammit
Ms Moore Tellers,
Mr Morris Mr Jeffery
Mr W. T. J. Murray Mr Kerr

Ms Allan Mr Markham
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Mr Mills
Mr A. S. Aquilina Mr Moss
Mr J. J. Aquilina Mr J. H. Murray
Mr Crittenden Mr Nagle
Mr Doyle Mr Neilly
Mr Face Mr Newman
Mr Gaudry Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gibson Mr Price
Mr Hatton Mr Rogan
Mr Hunter Mr Scully
Mr Iemma Mr Shedden
Mr Irwin Mr Sullivan
Mr Knight Mr Thompson
Mr Knowles Mr Whelan
Mr Langton Mr Yeadon
Mrs Lo Po' Tellers,
Mr McBride Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Davoren

Page 2612

Mr Baird Mr Bowman
Mr Blackmore Mr Carr
Mrs Cohen Mr Clough
Mr Downy Mrs Grusovin
Mr Fahey Mr Harrison
Mr Longley Ms Nori
Ms Machin Dr Refshauge
Mr Peacocke Mr Rumble

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Schedule 17

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Energy, and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives) [1.25]: I move Government amendments Nos 9 and 10:

No. 9 Page 45, Schedule 17. After line 8, insert:

(3) A resolution under this clause takes effect when it is published in the Gazette.

No. 10 Page 45, Schedule 17, lines 22 and 23. Omit "1 July 1993", insert instead "1 January 1994".

These amendments relate to the retention of the word "shire" or "municipal" in the name of the council, providing that the measure does not take effect until it is gazetted. If the bill were passed as currently drafted, it would be automatically opposed by many councils. The amendment gives them an option. The second amendment relates to the use of revaluations issued during the transitional period. This amendment will ensure that the new valuation of the Valuer-General may not be used for rating purposes until the 1994-95 financial year.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments, and report adopted.

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Rixon) left the chair at 1.28 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]