Local Government Amendment Bill

About this Item
Speakers - Turner Mr John
Business - Bill, Second Reading

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 May.

Mr TURNER (Myall Lakes) [5.07]: The Opposition supports this bill but will seek to move a minor amendment. I note that schedule 1 of the bill refers to amendments relating to fire safety. The Opposition has no difficulty with that; it is a move that should be supported. In recent times there have been some very unfortunate happenings in relation to fire, particularly in public buildings or prescribed buildings as referred to in the bill. The proposed amendment to the Act mirrors part 59 of ordinance No. 70, which was repealed, and puts back what was contained in that ordinance. It also provides for self-certification and penalties in the event that the owner of a prescribed building does not comply with self-certification and lodge the necessary documents with council. Although I would like to see some form of compulsory inspections, I accept and understand the problems that face councils in being able to undertake some form of compulsory inspection. They would not have the time nor the manpower to be able to it and as such we would endorse the fact that the certificate as to maintenance proposed in section 653B is appropriate in the circumstances. I also note further minor amendments relating to fire safety, particularly in relation to fire exits and travel paths to fire exits, and also in relation to false or misleading information. Proposed section 691A states:

Page 1054

Proceedings for an offence against section 653A or 653B must not be brought against the Crown in respect of a building on land that is a reserve within the meaning of Part 5 of the

Crown Lands Act 1989

, or a building that is a School of Arts or a Mechanics Institute . . .

This provision is included for a variety of reasons. Community halls, schools of arts or mechanics institutes on Crown lands in some country areas would not be able to comply with fire safety standards that would be required for inner city buildings that are closely aligned to each other. Halls in remote country areas often form the meeting place for many rural communities. I understand certain negotiations have to take place between the relevant Ministers if an action is brought in relation to buildings on such lands. Perhaps the Minister will elaborate on that in his reply.

Schedule 2 refers to rates, charges and fees. I initially had some difficulty in regard to the proposals concerning actual use. I envisaged an administrative nightmare for councils determining actual use. For example, my electorate has a high retiree population who spend considerable time away from the area, and it also has a number of holiday homes. Perhaps the owners of those homes could ask their council if their garbage bill or one of the other charges set out in section 496 or 501 of the Act could be apportioned against actual use. If I am not reading the section in the right way I would be happy for the Minister to address it in his reply.

If people availed themselves of this opportunity, council administrative staff could be tied up considerably. The rate base may be affected because councils have to recover their charges. If they do not collect a charge for the service rendered or apportion the charge amongst fewer people, they may have to increase the charge to those people. Those questions are unanswered, but I am satisfied that most people will benefit from the provision and that the Opposition should support the proposal.

If sewerage is available, councils often charge a sewerage fee on vacant land. Those councils could suffer a significant loss of revenue if that charge was removed because owners of vacant land do not use the service. If actual use cannot be measured, other contingencies arise. I have some difficulty with the amendment to section 608, which deals with fees to councils for services, and I will propose amendments to that section. The section covers council charges for building inspections such as checking the slab or frame of a dwelling house.

New sections 608(6) and 608(7) contain some safeguards to prevent overcharging or fees being collected when inspections have not taken place. I accept and understand the need for such safeguards. However, I have caused some inquiries to be made and have ascertained that a council fee of $460 is charged to process a building application for a house worth $150,000, and a fee of $560 for a house worth $200,000. Waverley Council does not have any other charges. Hurstville City Council charges the same fee, but has a building administration fee of $100 and other charges such as footpath crossing fees, level fees and toilet facility fees. Cessnock City Council charges an inspection fee of $180 over and above the $460.

This system of charging could be open to abuse and could be another avenue for councils to make extra money. There are many unforeseen costs in building a house, and the fee of $460 for a house worth $150,000 could reasonably cover processing of plans and inspections. I do not know how the costs are assessed but I imagine for project homes the $460 would provide some cream to the councils, whereas an architect-designed and custom-built home the same size may involve extra work and the cost might exceed $460. I would like to see the $460 as a one-off fee.

If I can be convinced that the figure should be increased to encompass an inspection fee because of an added cost over and above the $460, that is fine, but it is unreasonable for people building a home to have to pay $460 and later have to pay extra for the slab and frame inspection and the final inspection. The Opposition intends to move an amendment to provide that an up-front fee should reflect the cost to council of processing from the time the plans are lodged until the final certification. Some councils charge for inspections at the moment, but I am not sure if they are acting in contravention of the Act.

The Opposition has no problems with the miscellaneous amendments contained in schedule 3. In the proposed amendments to section 188, which refers to the restriction on compulsory acquisition on land for resale, I have some problem with the words "diligent inquiry" but I understand the definition is covered by the regulation and can be resolved by way of interpretation. The Opposition has no difficulty with the minor amendments dealt with in schedule 4.

The Opposition supports the bill but has slight reservations in relation to the charges. I would like to think an equitable fee can be worked out. It is standard practice for councils to inspect buildings, and I should think the fee of $460 for a $150,000 house would reflect the inspection fees. I have a sneaking suspicion that a few extra dollars will go into the coffers. I wonder whether a discount would be offered if an inspection of 20 homes in a new housing development was conducted in one morning, and whether an additional fee would be charged for an inspection 20 or 30 kilometres out of town. Those matters should be addressed so that people who need the services of council have a firm idea of the cost, which should be reflected in an up-front fee.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Amery.

Last modified 05/12/2007 16:33:47 : Update this page