Waverley Council Rates

About this Item
Speakers - Debnam Mr Peter; Page The Hon Ernest
Business - Private Members Statements

WAVERLEY COUNCIL RATES

Mr DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [6.41]: Many of my constituents are concerned about the behaviour of Waverley Council on a long-running rates issue. In September 1995 I was contacted by a Mr and Mrs Maxwell regarding a dispute with Waverley Council in relation to reimbursement of overpaid rates for their property dating back to 1979. In a letter sent to me Mr and Mrs Maxwell pointed out that they had paid business rates on their home for a period of about 22 years, instead of paying the appropriate residential rates. The amount involved is a considerable sum of money. Mr and Mrs Maxwell stated that the mistake came to their attention only in 1994 when the Department of Local Government instructed councils to reassess rate notices and the notice issued spelt out in red letters "Business", whereas previously rate demands had referred to "Nonresidential", which the Maxwells unfortunately overlooked.

Mr and Mrs Maxwell say that it now seems that they are at a standstill with Waverley Council, which still maintains that the onus is on the ratepayer to dispute any rate notice within 60 days. The Maxwells, however, are of the opinion, as is most of the community, that it was an honest mistake on their part and that the council, if not legally bound to return the money should surely do so on moral grounds. I made representations to the Minister for Local Government and to Waverley Council. In a letter dated 25 October Waverley Council replied that its advice was that the council could not re-rate the property after so many years.

The Minister for Local Government advised in a letter dated 24 November that it appeared that the council had acted lawfully but he noted, "The issue has been brought to the Premier's attention and I am advised that he has written to the Mayor of Waverley requesting that it consider a discretionary payment to the Maxwells." I thank the Minister for Local Government for his support. Waverley Council responded again on 13 March 1996 refusing to repay the money. On 1 April I suggested that the Maxwells seek advice from South Sydney Council, as that council had satisfactorily resolved a related issue. The South Sydney Council responded to the Maxwells on 14 May.

South Sydney Council referred to a review by council officers and stated that officers when reviewing the matter took the following two matters into consideration. First, the time limit of 60 days as stipulated by the 1919 Act was a limitation placed on the property owner and not on the council. That is to say that if the council was willing to recognise that a property had been incorrectly classified it could do so when presented with proof at any time, irrespective of the fact that the owner had lost his or her legal right under the Act. Second, the council pointed out that section 2.2 of the New South Wales Ombudsman good conduct and administrative practices legislation states in part that the obligation to comply with legal requirements does not relieve a council or its staff of a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of rigid adherence to the letter of the law where that results in or would result in manifestly inequitable treatment of an individual or organisation.

South Sydney Council then recommended on the basis of the foregoing and other relevant information that a refund be made without prejudice. The Maxwells have tried to talk to Waverley Council again this week. The only
Page 1522
response they received was to be told that the legal department would consider the matter and provide a response in due course. I recognise that the Minister for Local Government has no authority in this matter, and, as I have said, I thank him for his efforts to date. However, I ask him again as a past mayor of Waverley and a colleague of the Labor councillors who control Waverley Council to use his best endeavours to persuade Waverley Council to do the right thing.

All I ask in this matter is that the Maxwells be treated fairly, and to date Waverley Council has done the opposite and has used every opportunity to frustrate the Maxwells' request for redress. The record of Waverley Council on this issue is a disgrace. The Maxwells made an honest mistake in the past, which was of significant benefit to Waverley Council. The council's role has turned the matter from an honest mistake to an injustice. I ask the council to have a good think about the damage it is doing to its reputation. With the assistance of South Sydney Council, for which the Maxwells and I are certainly grateful, we presented Waverley Council with another opportunity to correct the mistake and remove the injustice. I seek the Minister's support. To Waverley Council I say, please have the decency to grasp this opportunity and give the money back.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [6.46]: I assure the honourable member for Vaucluse that as a former mayor of Waverley, I have no legal status whatsoever, having been off the council for nine years. A suggestion that I could take a legal stand on this issue is below me. Under the previous legislation the onus was on a ratepayer. If there was some disagreement about the classification of land, the owner had a period of 60 days after the rate notice was received to do something about it. Even though it was clearly stated on the rate bill that the land was zoned nonresidential, nothing was ever done by the ratepayer.

After 1993 when it was clearly stated that the land was not for residential purposes but was zoned commercial the Maxwells took up the matter with Waverley Council. I understood that both parties agreed that senior counsel, Mr W. R. Davison, would be briefed for the purposes of obtaining an opinion to settle the dispute and that both parties agreed to be bound by his finding. I have been advised that it was agreed that the fee for the advice would be paid by the council and would be deducted from the refund if the finding did not support the council's view. The legal opinion provided by Mr Davison confirmed previous in-house legal advice provided to the council that there was no basis for recovery of the moneys paid in accordance with the rate notices.

It would appear that the Maxwells, having agreed to abide by the finding initially, do not accept that finding and are still pursuing the matter. I congratulate South Sydney Council on being big enough to say that some other council was doing the wrong thing. I would have thought more of Waverley Council, however, had it posted a cheque. I also point out that the amount of money involved is $4,490.04, not $20,000 as has been put abroad from some avenues. As the honourable member for Vaucluse pointed out, this is a matter for Waverley Council. It would appear that the council is still considering the matter and that a decision will be made by that august body.

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