PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Contact us | Advanced search |   search
  1. Home
  2. Hansard
  3. Legislative Council by date
  4. 13 December 2001

Standing Committee On State Development

Printing Tips | Print selected text | Full Day Hansard Transcript | « Prior Item | Item 8 of 62 | Next Item »


About this Item
SpeakersGay The Hon Duncan; Fazio The Hon Amanda; Rhiannon Ms Lee; Sham-Ho The Hon Helen; Nile Reverend The Hon Fred; Jones The Hon Richard; Chesterfield-Evans The Hon Dr Arthur; Wong The Hon Dr Peter; Harwin The Hon Don
BusinessCommittee, Division


    STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE DEVELOPMENT

Page: 20116
    Reference: Local Government Boundary Changes

    The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.06 a.m.]: I move:
        1. That the Standing Committee on State Development inquire into and report on the impact of proposed changes to local government boundaries in inner Sydney and the eastern suburbs (South Sydney, Leichhardt, Waverley, Woollahra and the City of Sydney Councils), and in particular:
          (a) the economic impact of the proposed boundary changes on the areas affected,

          (b) the social impact on the communities affected by the changes,

          (c) the total value of assets owned by each council in areas that could be affected and the most equitable way to distribute those assets if the boundary changes were to proceed,

          (d) the extent to which there are differences between the changes recommended by Professor Kevin Sproats in his "Report of an Inquiry into the Structure of Eight Inner Sydney and Eastern Suburbs Councils" and the proposed changes later announced by the Minister for Local Government,

          (e) whether the Local Boundaries Commission inquiry into the Government's proposals has conformed with appropriate legislative requirements,

          (f) the need for a plebiscite of ratepayers of affected council areas under section 265 of the Local Government Act 1993.

        2. That the Committee report by 31 March 2002.

    I have moved this motion, with some reluctance, because the Government has ignored entire communities. Democracy has been forgotten. The motion is necessary because of the intransigence of the Minister for Local Government and the Government as a whole in consulting with communities that would be affected by the boundary changes proposed by the Government. This is a motion not to change the recommendations but to allow people the opportunity to comment. When the Minister for Local Government announced on 15 November the long-awaited Government response to the inquiry and report—which was conducted with integrity by University of Western Sydney academic Professor Kevin Sproats—he stated:
        Expansion of the boundaries of the City of Sydney is consistent with Professor Sproats' view that the boundaries should reflect the changes which have occurred in the city in recent years. "
    It is a shame that no-one thought to check the accuracy of those statements, because Professor Sproats stated on the ABC's Stateline program a fortnight ago that the Government's proposal did not even match the minimalist boundary change approach canvassed in his report. The Minister also stated that the proposal would be referred to the Local Government Boundaries Commission for examination and report, with an expected completion of the boundary redistribution by early next year. What he did not say, and what soon became clear, was that the time frame put in place would allow for absolutely no public consultation, nor for any public submissions to be placed before the commission for consideration of the boundary change proposals. In other words, the boundaries commission process would become little more than a rubber stamp for the Government's intentions. That simply is not good enough.

    In addition to this restriction on public input, there has also been the demonstrably unfair situation in which councils were expected to deliver, in less than two weeks, a complete submission to the boundaries commission on their future. That is ludicrous. It is a clear example of the contempt with which the Carr Labor Government is treating communities and councils that will be affected by these proposals. That is why we are moving for this inquiry. The Coalition is seeking to redress an imbalance that could be easily resolved by the Government.

    Kevin Sproats did not sit as a boundaries commissioner. He did not sit with a brief to examine the financial and social impact of removing large tracts of a council's area and transferring it to another council. He did not have a brief to examine how assets should be shared or redistributed in the eventuality of a boundary change one way or another. He was not required to report on the impact of boundary changes on remnant council areas—the bits that have been left behind—that is, the areas of South Sydney and Leichhardt councils that will be left behind if the boundary changes go ahead. I will not for one moment take away from the excellent work done by Professor Sproats. He did a great job examining on behalf of the Government and reporting on what he was asked to do.

    The Government is now trying to destabilise two major council areas to deliver an expanded empire to its friends at the City of Sydney with little or no public consultation. This inquiry is about looking at matters that were not canvassed in the Sproats report but are relevant in light of the Government's proposals for change. It is about examining issues that the boundaries commission will not look at in great detail and, by virtue of the time span, have been precluded.

    I am firmly of the view that when the boundaries commission examines this proposal, its Government-appointed members will do little more than tick the box that tells the Minister to sign on the bottom line. There has been no consultation. There has been no public input, and that is a travesty. Both South Sydney and Leichhardt councils have launched court action against this proposal. They have serious concerns about the impact of this proposal, concerns that focus on the loss of revenue and assets to their respective councils, and proper concerns about the impact of the changes on what will be left of their areas.

    They are fully supportive of letting the public have its say in this matter. In fact, 82 per cent of respondents to a South Sydney council poll of 2,000 people supported a poll to decide the issue. That is a hard statistic to ignore. What sort of State are we becoming when local government has to take the State Government to both the Land and Environment Court and the Supreme Court in an attempt to restore democracy and people's ability to have a say in their future?

    The costs of that action to councils and their ratepayers could easily have been avoided if the Government had allowed public consultation in the first place. It has been dragged kicking and screaming into the courts on this issue, which is a fair indication of the reluctance of the Australian Labor Party to have this matter properly scrutinised. If the Government will not allow a proper examination of this proposal, it is our duty as elected representatives in what is supposed to be a House of Review to deliver this inquiry to the people of the affected council areas. I have spoken to some honourable members who are concerned about this inquiry commencing while court action is still under way.

    Inherent in this motion, and I confirm now, is that the Opposition is not trying to second guess or interfere with the court actions that are proceeding in the Land and Environment Court and the Supreme Court. I indicate to the House that, although I do not believe it is a problem, if that is a major concern, I, and I am sure all honourable members, will be happy to defer the inquiry until after those cases are decided. I also hope that the Government will agree to defer a recommendation to the Governor on these boundary change proposals until such time as the inquiry is complete. That is an undertaking that has been given in the courts in the past two weeks, and it is not a huge undertaking to give to the Parliament.

    I stress again that this inquiry would not have been necessary had the Government done the proper thing and allowed a full public inquiry in the first place. These are major proposals—not just a readjustment of boundaries—that are akin to amalgamation. They have not been subject to an inquiry, and that is why this inquiry is essential. I look forward to support for this inquiry, and I commend the motion to the House. I certainly hope honourable members will support the motion.

    The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [11.17 a.m.]: The Government opposes the motion. By way of background, Minister Woods announced a public inquiry in November 2000 to examine the local government structure of eight inner city and eastern suburbs councils—Sydney, South Sydney, Leichhardt, Waverley, Woollahra, Marrickville, Randwick and Botany Bay. University of Western Sydney academic Professor Kevin Sproats undertook the inquiry, which received more than 450 submissions and held public hearings for two weeks. The inquiry followed a number of petitions calling for boundary changes as well as two previous reports—the 1987 Goran report and the 1998 Fisher report—which also advocated an expanded City of Sydney. The Sproats report was handed down in May, with the key recommendation of the eight councils being recast into four new entities.

    The Government said it would not be pursuing this option without the support of all the councils, in line with the Government's no-forced-merger policy. Professor Sproats also canvassed a series of alternatives to this recommendation which he said the Government could initiate. He described these as the minimalist approach. The final proposal of Minister Woods mirrored those boundary changes with two changes—the inclusion of the University of Sydney and Chippendale into an expanded City of Sydney. The Government also said it would not pursue, at least at this stage, suggested boundary changes involving the port and Sydney Airport. As required under the Local Government Act—introduced by the former Coalition Government in 1993—the Minister referred the proposal to the independent Local Government Boundaries Commission for examination and report.

    The motion of the Hon Duncan Gay seeks to inquire into the economic impact of proposed changes. But under section 263 of the Local Government Act, the boundaries commission must consider the financial advantages or disadvantages, including the economies or diseconomies of scale, of any relevant proposal to the residents and ratepayers of the areas concerned. A parliamentary inquiry would therefore duplicate the boundaries commission work.

    The motion also calls for an inquiry into the social impact on the communities affected by the changes. Under section 263 of the Local Government Act the boundaries commission must consider, among other things, the community of interest in the existing areas and in any proposed new area, as well as existing historical and traditional values. As to the total value of assets owned by each council in areas that could be affected and the most equitable way of distributing those assets if the boundary changes were to proceed, when the Minister announced the proposed changes in October he outlined a series of principles that would guide future transitional arrangements. This involved the transfer of assets, liabilities and staff.

    The motion would also have the inquiry examine the extent to which there are differences between the changes recommended by Professor Sproats and the proposed changes announced later by the Minister for Local Government. However, the Minister made it quite clear in May—and he has done so many times since then—that, although the eight-to-four proposal would not go ahead without the support of the councils concerned, there would be reforms as a result of the Sproats report. In his press release issued on 6 May the Minister said:
        I will ask them—
    that is the councils—
        to report back to me on the council's position by no later than June 4. Until I receive that advice, it would be premature to determine the State Government's response to the other recommendations of the report, including the options for minimalist boundary change.
    It is strange that the councillors are acting so surprised when the Minister partly adopted the minimalist boundary approach put forward in the report. The Minister has made no secret of the fact that there have been some modifications to the Sproats "expanded city of Sydney" option—namely, the addition of the University of Sydney, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and Chippendale to the City of Sydney council.

    The motion also asks whether the Local Government Boundaries Commission inquiry into the Government's proposals has conformed with appropriate legislative requirements. Honourable members are assured that the boundaries commission is carrying out its functions under the Local Government Act 1993. Its powers are very defined and it is acting according to provisions of the Act when considering boundary changes. As to the so-called need for a plebiscite of ratepayers under section 265 of the Local Government Act, under that section the boundaries commission may conduct in such a manner as it thinks appropriate an opinion, survey or poll of residents and ratepayers. The boundaries commission, not the Government, must determine whether to undertake a survey. Neither the Minister nor Parliament can force the independent boundaries commission to conduct a survey or poll as provided in section 265.

    I ask honourable members to take careful note of the fact that boundary changes are treated differently from mergers under the Act. Boundary changes occur regularly in New South Wales and the provisions in the Act are very clear and decisive. Since the Minister's announcement in October, South Sydney and Leichhardt councils have been fighting the proposed changes in the courts—at what must be a huge expense to their ratepayers. South Sydney Council has taken action in the New South Wales Land and Environment Court, while Leichhardt Council is fighting the changes in the New South Wales Supreme Court. It is totally inappropriate for a parliamentary inquiry to pre-empt these court proceedings.

    Council boundary changes occur regularly in New South Wales without a ruckus. Federal and State electoral boundaries change regularly without a ruckus. The Sproats report has been in the public arena since May this year, and three reports since 1987 have recommended the action that we propose. We have also received petitions from residents keen for change—an opinion that is mirrored in current correspondence to metropolitan newspapers. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition wants another inquiry even though the boundaries commission is already examining the issues that he has raised in his notice of motion. This inquiry would also be in addition to the lengthy Sproats public inquiry. Furthermore, these matters are now before the courts. The House should at least await the findings of these proceedings and not pre-empt either court's deliberations or the boundaries commission's process. I urge honourable members to reject the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's motion.

    In conclusion, I will respond to several issues raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in moving this motion. He claims that there has been no consultation about this matter. However, the Sproats inquiry into the possible amalgamation and review of the structure of the eight councils, which led to this proposed course of action on the part of the Government, received more than 450 submissions and conducted two weeks of public hearings. It is simply not true that there has been no consultation. It has not been sprung on the public suddenly.

    The Deputy Leader of the Opposition also claimed that 82 per cent of residents polled supported a plebiscite on this issue. That statement is an insult to members' intelligence. There is no point in the Deputy Leader of the Opposition citing those figures unless he tells us how the poll was conducted, what questions were asked, and whether leading questions were put. He might as well come into this place and claim that 82 per cent of the population think the sky is purple. It is clearly not, but if we ask people enough silly questions in the poll preamble, we will elicit that response.

    It is a nonsense to say that these changes are akin to amalgamation. They are boundary changes, and eight councils will remain in the inner-city area. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition suggested that we wait until the court decisions have been made. If he believes that, he should withdraw his notice of motion, return to the issue after the boundaries commission inquiry and the court actions have concluded and put it before the House again. I urge all honourable members to oppose the motion of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

    Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.25 a.m.]: The Greens support the motion and we warmly congratulate the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on putting it before the House. The Greens are deeply concerned about amalgamations and changes to boundaries that do not have strong community support. That is why we think this inquiry is necessary. The success of local government is determined in some measure by the degree to which the local community identifies with its municipality and its council. The community benefits of strong identification are massive. Strong local government can address the alienation from other levels of government that characterises so much of the current political debate in this country.

    Therefore, it is a matter of great concern when State governments start messing with the structure of local government. One would expect the Carr Government to have learnt something from the Victorian experience. What could happen in New South Wales has already happened in Victoria under the Kennett Government. That is the worst-case scenario. Ostensibly designed to increase the efficiency of service delivery, Victoria's so-called reforms largely destroyed the culture of local government and reduced councils to simply being administrators of State policy, with little connection to their communities.

    That is why we emphasise that the strength of local government must be its connection with the local community. That connection will be shattered if amalgamations such as this are allowed to proceed. In recent years the situation in Victoria has improved, with newer councillors making an effort to break through the Kennett mess and re-establish connections with the community. I pay credit to those councillors and communities for their efforts, which demonstrate their resilience.

    Much of the debate in Sydney has revolved around the notion of efficiency—a word we are hearing more and more from Labor Ministers from both the left and the right of their party; it seems to be their favourite word. Many arguments centre around the fact that councils must be enlarged in order to deliver services more efficiently. The spin is that the Government is concerned about service delivery to the public, but the real issue is control and power. Some groups view the connection between communities and councils as a threat to their ability to control the situation. This is the background to the Sproats inquiry. While the amalgamation push was not a stated objective of that inquiry, we knew that it was in the wings—and Sproats did not disappoint us. The recommendation was made and the Government has acted on it quickly.

    The value of empowering local communities was relegated to a poor second by the Sproats inquiry, which underlines our point about its main objective. The Government did not anticipate such a level of community reaction to Professor Sproats' outrageous proposals. Governments that are out of touch with the community often do not bank on how hard it will be for them to pass some of their dodgy proposals without enraging the public. That is what is happening at the moment. Community discontent is particularly reflected in the well-attended public meetings on the amalgamation of various municipalities around Sydney. It has become clear to the Minister that devastating local government in the inner city could be a political mistake. I think the Minister is still trying to come to grips with that fact. The Greens congratulate the communities on the fight that they are putting up.

    Many Greens councillors and local people are working with these communities to help them articulate their position to the developer-compliant councils. Effectively, that is what Professor Sproats is putting forward. It was to be hoped that some lessons would be learned as a result of this exercise. The Minister, who persisted in riding roughshod over local communities, announced a wholesale movement of communities into Sydney city. That will really fracture those communities. Anger is building up in those communities and that is an issue that must be addressed. The Greens support the establishment of this inquiry. It will give these people a voice at this crucial time before they are pushed into councils where they do not fit in naturally.

    While some of the Minister's suggestions may have some merit, the significance and sensitivity of local government makes further consideration essential. I appeal to the Government to be sensible on this issue and to allow the inquiry to go ahead. The Greens support the incorporation of Bondi Junction into Waverley as a sensible step forward and one that involves the movement of a few residents and only a few businesses. That move provides for the sensible and orderly redevelopment of public space and for better development control on private space. So far as I know, apart from the Mayor of Woollahra, there has been almost no public opposition to that aspect of the Sproats inquiry. The other boundary changes, which are much more controversial, deserve more attention.

    This wholesale movement of community boundaries will place at risk the special values of local government. A number of political parties see local government as a training ground for higher office. Sometimes that factor clouds their judgment when they have to decide what is best for local communities. Interestingly, some of the arguments for amalgamation came from organisations that have a vested interest in weakening the democratic power of the community. Tourist operators and developers use the urban environment to make profits, usually at the expense of amenity and environmental quality. It does not have to be that way. The fact that one tourist operator or developer is making money does not have to result in damaging the environment. However, that is a factor at the moment—a factor about which we must be mindful—and that is why local government must be strong.

    The acid test is this: How would politicians in New South Wales view an attempt by the Federal Government to move, say, the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Authority into Victoria or the Richmond-Tweed district into an expanded Queensland? There would be outrage, there would be speeches all day in this place, and we would consider it absolutely unacceptable. It is a tragedy of disrespect for local government. The principles that we apply in relation to the integrity of boundaries do not apply when we are dealing with local government. The Greens support the motion moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I hope that this inquiry proceeds quickly and that it allows for a more open and democratic consideration of these proposed boundary changes. I again congratulate the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on moving this motion. I hope that it will help to break up the logjam that is developing in relation to this issue at the moment.

    The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [11.34 p.m.]: In speaking in debate on this motion I declare an interest in or a potential conflict relating to this issue. All honourable member are aware that my husband, Robert Ho, is a councillor on Sydney council. However, he does his duty impartially, just as I do. I support the motion moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to refer these proposed boundary changes to the Standing Committee on State Development. I state at the outset that I will not speak about the substance or merits of the Sproats inquiry or the Local Government Boundaries Commission inquiry as I am not aware of the reference and I have not read the Sproats report.

    The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is a good report.

    The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I take seriously the word of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, just as I took seriously his contribution to this debate. There is no reason why the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would mislead the Parliament. As I have done no research on this issue I will talk only in general terms about this process. I received a memorandum from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition only this morning and I have not had adequate time within which to peruse that document. It is my view that the proposed reference to the Standing Committee on State Development would be a good reference. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said earlier that it was important to have community consultation and input in relation to this issue.

    I have ascertained, after listening to debate and reading newspaper articles over the past few weeks, that the community is not too happy about these changes. When two local council mayors recently spoke to members on the crossbenches they said that they did not like these proposed council amalgamations or boundary changes. Mr John Fowler, South Sydney City Council Mayor, called me just before we commenced proceedings this morning and strongly supported the motion of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to refer these matters to the Standing Committee on State Development. He said that he had no problem with proposed changes to the City of Sydney but he believed that there should be more consultation.

    Mr Fowler told me that an action was pending from South Sydney City Council and that the Local Government Boundaries Commission gave him only five days within which to make a submission, which is not fair. Apparently he should have had 40 days within which to prepare a submission. It takes time to obtain material and to prepare a proper submission. Mr Fowler also said that the hearing was scheduled for Friday. Earlier, the Hon. Amanda Fazio suggested that we should not proceed with this matter until that hearing had been concluded. As the parliamentary session concludes tomorrow we will not be in a position to again address this issue, so the honourable member's suggestion was not really practical or realistic.

    I said earlier that I would not talk about the merits of the inquiry conducted by Professor Kevin Sproats, whom I believe to be fairly impartial. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said earlier, Professor Sproats' report is a good report. Ten minutes before I came into the Chamber this morning I received a letter from the Minister for Local Government, the Hon. Harry Woods—a letter to which the Hon. Amanda Fazio referred earlier. That letter states, in part, that the Sproats inquiry received 450 submissions and advocated an expanded City of Sydney. I quote from that letter dated 13 December from the Hon. Harry Woods:
        The Sproats report was handed down in May, with the key recommendation of the eight councils being re-cast into four new entities.

        The State Government stated that it would not be pursuing this option without the support of all the councils in line with the Government's no forced merger policy.
    If the Government does not have a no forced merger policy, the councils will not be happy. The eight councils that were mentioned, Sydney, South Sydney, Leichhardt, Waverley, Woollahra, Marrickville, Randwick and Botany Bay, are up in arms about this particular Government proposal. I called the Minister's office, which was the reason I was late to the Chamber, and spoke to the Minister's Chief of Staff. I asked him to explain the reason for this proposal. I gave him an open slate to tell me what was going on. I understand that my decision is my prerogative. I quoted to him the following from the Minister's letter:
        The final proposal I announced in late October was not inconsistent with the boundary changes—the only addition being the inclusion of the University of Sydney, RPA Hospital and Chippendale into an expanded City of Sydney.
    I have been around for a long time and I know that a recommendation is followed because it is an outcome of a finding. But a change, even a small addition, is not a recommendation. I said to the staffer that a new addition is not a recommendation, and I was told that it was "a Cabinet decision". If it was a Cabinet decision that means there was no community input; it was not a recommendation of the Sproats inquiry and received no real support from the people. I thought it was strange for him to say that because he was contradicting himself on that point. I thought I should enlighten the House about that inconsistency with the Government's claim that it is what the public wants. I believe it is not what the public wants, but it is probably what the Lord Mayor of Sydney wants. I know the Lord Mayor very well; he is a strong character and will do everything within his power to achieve what he wants.

    The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: He has a Napoleonic view of the world. He is trying to increase his empire.

    The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I have known Frank Sartor for a long time. I do not know whether he thinks he is Napoleon Bonaparte, but certainly the Government supports the Lord Mayor's views. He has not talked to me about it, so I do not know his views.

    The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: He does not support the Labor Party.

    The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I have not discussed anything with my husband, Robert Ho, who is a councillor on the City of Sydney council.

    The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Why not? He's a member of the Labor Party.

    The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: That is why I declare my interest. He might be a Labor Party member and a councillor of the City of Sydney, but I do not necessarily vote in favour of what they want. That is the reason I am speaking now in the House. I have to carry out my duty impartially and analyse the way I should vote. I want the House to know that the reason I vote this way or that way is that I want transparency. As members of Parliament we carry out our duties according to what we believe is the right thing to do. That is exactly what I am trying to do. I will not take up the time of the House as many other members want to speak to this motion, but I agree that it should be referred to the Standing Committee on State Development. I have every respect for the standing committees of this House because they are always impartial and do a wonderful job. However, after speaking to Mayor John Fowler, my only reservation is that this particular standing committee, like all other standing committees, has a majority of government members. I raise that point, but I have faith and confidence in the committees.

    The Hon. Duncan Gay: I think it will be fair.

    The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: Yes. To be fair to all of our standing committees, I believe they always do a great job. I look forward to the state development committee publishing its report in March.

    Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.44 a.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I propose to move an amendment to it, but I make it clear that supporting the motion does not mean that I automatically oppose what the Government proposes. We must fully understand and comprehend that proposal. Perhaps the House will finally agree in principle to the proposals of the Minister, the Hon. Harry Woods, who has written to all crossbench members stating that we should not support the motion. I see some positive values in supporting the motion, which may help clear the air to allow final support for the Government's proposal in due course. As other speakers have said, the earlier inquiry by Professor Kevin Sproats recommended amalgamation of the eight councils into four. That is a major change to the Government's proposal and it involves two different propositions. One main objection the Minister raised with the crossbench was that court cases were proceeding. For that reason I move:
        That the question be amended by the addition of the following paragraph at the end:

        3. That, in view of the current proceedings in the Supreme Court and the Land and Environment Court, the Committee not commence its inquiry until a judgment is given in those proceedings. The Committee, in its inquiry, is to have regard to any decision of those Courts impacting on the proposed boundary changes.

    The Hon. RICHARD JONES [11.46 a.m.]: I support the motion of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. This House should inquire into the matter. I was a member of this place when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was a member of the previous Coalition government, and I recall that we went through the process of dismantling the City of Sydney. At that time I moved a number of amendments to the legislation and was negotiating with Frank Sartor to try to keep the city together. John Hannaford was babying the legislation through the House. At one point he said that he would be prepared to keep the City of Sydney together. What happened was that the Labor Party caved in to ensure that the City of Sydney was divided up. If the Labor Party had stood firm on my amendment at that time the City of Sydney would have been a more integral place. However, rather than rushing the proposal through, a proper inquiry is needed to discover what the boundaries should be. I totally agree that an inquiry should be held.

    The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.47 a.m.]: A number of changes are needed in Australian government. Australian Democrats policy is to abolish the States and regionalise government. Government needs to be more representative and not based on single-member electorates, which allows gross distortions of parliamentary representation relative to voting patterns. Obviously, some local council reform is needed. When the Local Government Act was debated in this place, the crossbench and the Opposition insisted that referendums should be held. Unfortunately, the Government did not want to accept that proposal. I understood from the way the bill was drafted that referendums would be needed. The Government said there would never be any change if referendums were necessary. That is like saying society would still be living under autocracy long after choosing the processes of democracy. That is an absurd proposition.

    Basically, if we truly want government of the people, by the people and for the people, we have to talk to the people and convince them that what is proposed is a good thing. I do not believe the Government's proposal is a good thing. I do not understand the reasons for these proposed boundary changes. I think that councils are being punished because Independent members were returned, and council rating bases are being viewed politically and vindictively. I cannot find any good reason, nor have I heard any good explanation, for this proposal. Certainly public discussion has not been as extensive as it should have been. The interview on Stateline with Commissioner Kevin Sproats, who wrote the report, made the matter very clear. He said:
        I recommended that they recast local government into four new areas with respective responsibilities, different perspectives, different strategies. And that's in essence what the report was.
    Sproats said:
        I thought there was a significant opportunity, an impetus to do something and it seems that at least in the short term that that's been lost. That here was an opportunity to do what has been recommended before and that is to recast that area. And the very key area that I made the mention of is that here is an opportunity to advance reform of local government in the whole State. Because there are other areas that need to be looked at and here was a mechanism for doing it and a model perhaps that could be used. And to that extent, I'm disappointed that that's not happened.
    He was asked:
        As a proudly independent commissioner, are you not … disappointed that your name is being attached to what has been sold by government?
    Sproats replied:
        Well, I mean, if the government is saying that that's what I recommended, then obviously I'm disappointed … because that's not what I recommended.
    I quote Sproats again:
        The Government has made its determination and it's not the boundaries that … even the boundaries that I canvassed in that latter part of the report as an alternative. They have made their decisions, they have got their advisers. But they're certainly in a position to make that determination but certainly it's not the ones that I had recommended.
    I have nothing against Frank Sartor. He has more vision than most people and has done a lot of good for Sydney. It is fair enough that he wants to increase his council area—who would not? But South Sydney council will lose about 45 per cent of its rating base, the proposal to reduce eight councils to four seems to lack overall vision, and a sound rationale has not been offered. This all sounds very much like the Government making policy on the run for its own convenience. For that reason I support an inquiry and, as I think the due process of the court should not be interfered with by a double inquiry, I will support the amendment.

    The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [11.51 a.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Also I will be supporting the amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

    The Hon. DON HARWIN [11.51 a.m.]: There are two reasons why I believe the House should support the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's motion. It is a complete nonsense to describe, as the Hon. Amanda Fazio did, that the proposal is about a mere boundary change. The fact is that South Sydney council, for example, is losing more than a third of its population and more than half of its rating base. The process the Government has undertaken has identified real flaws in the Act. This is a totally new boundary proposal, and despite the Sproats process people have had no opportunity to comment on it. The Act provides 40 days for people to lodge submissions. The commission has delivered much less.

    To give the complete lie to what the Hon. Amanda Fazio has said, one only has to recall what is on record in Hansard from the Leader of the Government, who himself has evidenced considerable dissatisfaction with the boundary outcome. The second reason is that, from the timetable the Government is adopting, the Local Government Boundaries Commission proposes to ignore the consultation provision that this House put in the Act only last year. For that reason, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's motion should be supported.

    The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.53 a.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions. One has to wonder what the political rush is for this. Ms Lee Rhiannon's comment that the Government should have looked and listened to what happened in Victoria before the last election is appropriate. The Hon. Amanda Fazio said that boundary changes are happening all the time, and that they can be as minor as transferring a small part of a property to another council. These changes will not move a small part of property to another council. As many honourable members have indicated, the proposed changes are huge and they need public input. That is the problem. Sproats was not the boundaries commission. He did not look at the economic impacts, nor did he look at the impact of the changes on these particular remnant areas.

    A public inquiry would not replicate the boundaries commission, because the boundaries commission is not having public input. That is the way the Minister for Local Government set this up. In this case the committee would do a better job. The commission has no public input and a very limited time frame. Rather than my carrying on in reply following other contributions, I leave the final say to the Inner Metropolitan Regional Organisation of Councils [IMROC], which is made up of the councils of Ashfield, Burwood, city of Canada Bay, Lane Cove, Leichhardt, city of South Sydney and Strathfield. On 6 December that organisation wrote to me saying:
        Dear Mr Gay

        … At the Annual General Meeting of the Inner Metropolitan Regional Organisation of Councils on 22nd November 2001, the following resolution was passed unanimously:

        "That IMROC expresses concern for any forced boundary changes or 'backdoor' compulsory amalgamations of South Sydney, Leichhardt or Sydney City Councils and supports all efforts of South Sydney and Leichhardt Councils to apply rigorous scrutiny and thorough community consultation to any boundary changes".

        As President of IMROC, I express the support of our Organisation for South Sydney and Leichhardt Councils in their wish for a comprehensive process of community consultation before any of the proposed boundary changes take place.

        Yours sincerely

        Cr Mark Bonanno
        President, IMROC
    He is a Labor man, not a member of the National Party. This is Labor people saying that they would like the public to find out. That is what this House is about. In conclusion, I indicate also that the Waverley and Woollahra matter needs to be looked at. I was incorrectly quoted in the Southern Courier and in my own time I will put a letter in about that. I thank honourable members for their indicated support and commend the motion to the House.

    Amendment agreed to.

    Question—That the motion as amended be agreed to—put.

    The House divided.
    Ayes, 21
            Mr Breen
            Dr Chesterfield-Evans
            Mr Cohen
            Mr Corbett
            Mrs Forsythe
            Mr Gallacher
            Mr Gay
            Mr Harwin            		Mr M. I. Jones
            Mr R. S. L. Jones
            Mrs Nile
            Reverend Nile
            Mr Oldfield
            Mr Pearce
            Dr Pezzutti
            Ms Rhiannon            		Mrs Sham-Ho
            Mr Tingle
            Dr Wong

            Tellers,
            Mr Jobling
            Mr Moppett
    Noes, 10
            Mr Costa
            Mr Dyer
            Mr Egan
            Mr Hatzistergos            		Mr Obeid
            Ms Tebbutt
            Mr Tsang
            Mr West            		Tellers,
            Ms Fazio
            Mr Primrose

    Pairs
                Mr CollessDr Burgmann
                Miss GardinerMs Burnswoods
                Mr LynnMr Della Bosca
                Mr RyanMr Macdonald
                Mr SamiosMs Saffin

    Question resolved in the affirmative.

    Motion as amended agreed to.

         Contact us | Job opportunities | RSS feeds | Site help
Copyright & conditions of use | Privacy | Authorised user login