❓ Question on Notice regarding local governments not complying with the Local Government Act in relation to imposing rates. The Minister declines to name the specific local governments pending legal advice but details the areas of noncompliance.
AnsweredQoN 713Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT — NONCOMPLYING RATES
I refer to the minister’s statement made on 1 September 2011 regarding the number of local governments that are not complying with the Local Government Act in relation to the process of imposing rates. (1) Which 16 local governments were assessed as not complying? (2) In what way did each of those local governments fail to comply? (3) Which two local governments have points of noncompliance that can be addressed under Governor’s Orders? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY
I refer to the minister’s statement made on 1 September 2011 regarding the number of local governments that are not complying with the Local Government Act in relation to the process of imposing rates. (1) Which 16 local governments were assessed as not complying? (2) In what way did each of those local governments fail to comply? (3) Which two local governments have points of noncompliance that can be addressed under Governor’s Orders? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) The Minister for Local Government is not prepared to name these local governments, which include both metropolitan and non-metropolitan, as he has initiated a request with the State Solicitor’s Office to confirm noncompliance. (2) The following describes areas of noncompliance. Some local governments were found to be noncompliant in more than one area of the Local Government Act 1995. Six local governments did not obtain ministerial approval under section 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a differential general rate that is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed. Four local governments did not obtain ministerial approval under section 6.35(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of gross rental value–rated vacant land. Four local governments imposed a general minimum payment and a lesser minimum payment contrary to section 6.35(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 1995, which requires the general minimum to be applied to at least 50 per cent of the properties on which a minimum payment is imposed. In the instances, the greater number of properties are on the lesser minimum. Four local governments imposed a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of properties in a general differential category contrary to section 6.35(4) of the Local Government Act 1995. One local government imposed three different minimum payments when section 6.35(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 allows only a general minimum and a lesser minimum—two minimum payments. One local government imposed a specified area minimum payment when section 6.35(1) allows only a minimum payment to be imposed on a general rate and not on a specified area rate. One local government imposed a waste reserve levy without providing a waste receptacle to a service for the levy. (3) Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a differential general rate that is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed. Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.35(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of gross rental value-rated vacant land. The PRESIDENT : Members might have observed that I have gone a bit differently in order today because I have given preference to the members who were here and stood at the beginning of question time. I might add that this extends to the responsibility of all members across the chamber with petitions and papers for tabling, including ministers and opposition frontbenchers. They have a responsibility to be here to handle their own business.
(1) Which 16 local governments were assessed as not complying? (2) In what way did each of those local governments fail to comply? (3) Which two local governments have points of noncompliance that can be addressed under Governor’s Orders? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) The Minister for Local Government is not prepared to name these local governments, which include both metropolitan and non-metropolitan, as he has initiated a request with the State Solicitor’s Office to confirm noncompliance. (2) The following describes areas of noncompliance. Some local governments were found to be noncompliant in more than one area of the Local Government Act 1995. Six local governments did not obtain ministerial approval under section 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a differential general rate that is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed. Four local governments did not obtain ministerial approval under section 6.35(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of gross rental value–rated vacant land. Four local governments imposed a general minimum payment and a lesser minimum payment contrary to section 6.35(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 1995, which requires the general minimum to be applied to at least 50 per cent of the properties on which a minimum payment is imposed. In the instances, the greater number of properties are on the lesser minimum. Four local governments imposed a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of properties in a general differential category contrary to section 6.35(4) of the Local Government Act 1995. One local government imposed three different minimum payments when section 6.35(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 allows only a general minimum and a lesser minimum—two minimum payments. One local government imposed a specified area minimum payment when section 6.35(1) allows only a minimum payment to be imposed on a general rate and not on a specified area rate. One local government imposed a waste reserve levy without providing a waste receptacle to a service for the levy. (3) Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a differential general rate that is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed. Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.35(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of gross rental value-rated vacant land. The PRESIDENT : Members might have observed that I have gone a bit differently in order today because I have given preference to the members who were here and stood at the beginning of question time. I might add that this extends to the responsibility of all members across the chamber with petitions and papers for tabling, including ministers and opposition frontbenchers. They have a responsibility to be here to handle their own business.
(2) In what way did each of those local governments fail to comply? (3) Which two local governments have points of noncompliance that can be addressed under Governor’s Orders? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) The Minister for Local Government is not prepared to name these local governments, which include both metropolitan and non-metropolitan, as he has initiated a request with the State Solicitor’s Office to confirm noncompliance. (2) The following describes areas of noncompliance. Some local governments were found to be noncompliant in more than one area of the Local Government Act 1995. Six local governments did not obtain ministerial approval under section 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a differential general rate that is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed. Four local governments did not obtain ministerial approval under section 6.35(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of gross rental value–rated vacant land. Four local governments imposed a general minimum payment and a lesser minimum payment contrary to section 6.35(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 1995, which requires the general minimum to be applied to at least 50 per cent of the properties on which a minimum payment is imposed. In the instances, the greater number of properties are on the lesser minimum. Four local governments imposed a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of properties in a general differential category contrary to section 6.35(4) of the Local Government Act 1995. One local government imposed three different minimum payments when section 6.35(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 allows only a general minimum and a lesser minimum—two minimum payments. One local government imposed a specified area minimum payment when section 6.35(1) allows only a minimum payment to be imposed on a general rate and not on a specified area rate. One local government imposed a waste reserve levy without providing a waste receptacle to a service for the levy. (3) Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a differential general rate that is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed. Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.35(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of gross rental value-rated vacant land. The PRESIDENT : Members might have observed that I have gone a bit differently in order today because I have given preference to the members who were here and stood at the beginning of question time. I might add that this extends to the responsibility of all members across the chamber with petitions and papers for tabling, including ministers and opposition frontbenchers. They have a responsibility to be here to handle their own business.
(3) Which two local governments have points of noncompliance that can be addressed under Governor’s Orders? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) The Minister for Local Government is not prepared to name these local governments, which include both metropolitan and non-metropolitan, as he has initiated a request with the State Solicitor’s Office to confirm noncompliance. (2) The following describes areas of noncompliance. Some local governments were found to be noncompliant in more than one area of the Local Government Act 1995. Six local governments did not obtain ministerial approval under section 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a differential general rate that is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed. Four local governments did not obtain ministerial approval under section 6.35(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of gross rental value–rated vacant land. Four local governments imposed a general minimum payment and a lesser minimum payment contrary to section 6.35(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 1995, which requires the general minimum to be applied to at least 50 per cent of the properties on which a minimum payment is imposed. In the instances, the greater number of properties are on the lesser minimum. Four local governments imposed a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of properties in a general differential category contrary to section 6.35(4) of the Local Government Act 1995. One local government imposed three different minimum payments when section 6.35(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 allows only a general minimum and a lesser minimum—two minimum payments. One local government imposed a specified area minimum payment when section 6.35(1) allows only a minimum payment to be imposed on a general rate and not on a specified area rate. One local government imposed a waste reserve levy without providing a waste receptacle to a service for the levy. (3) Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a differential general rate that is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed. Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.35(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of gross rental value-rated vacant land. The PRESIDENT : Members might have observed that I have gone a bit differently in order today because I have given preference to the members who were here and stood at the beginning of question time. I might add that this extends to the responsibility of all members across the chamber with petitions and papers for tabling, including ministers and opposition frontbenchers. They have a responsibility to be here to handle their own business.
Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) The Minister for Local Government is not prepared to name these local governments, which include both metropolitan and non-metropolitan, as he has initiated a request with the State Solicitor’s Office to confirm noncompliance. (2) The following describes areas of noncompliance. Some local governments were found to be noncompliant in more than one area of the Local Government Act 1995. Six local governments did not obtain ministerial approval under section 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a differential general rate that is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed. Four local governments did not obtain ministerial approval under section 6.35(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of gross rental value–rated vacant land. Four local governments imposed a general minimum payment and a lesser minimum payment contrary to section 6.35(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 1995, which requires the general minimum to be applied to at least 50 per cent of the properties on which a minimum payment is imposed. In the instances, the greater number of properties are on the lesser minimum. Four local governments imposed a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of properties in a general differential category contrary to section 6.35(4) of the Local Government Act 1995. One local government imposed three different minimum payments when section 6.35(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 allows only a general minimum and a lesser minimum—two minimum payments. One local government imposed a specified area minimum payment when section 6.35(1) allows only a minimum payment to be imposed on a general rate and not on a specified area rate. One local government imposed a waste reserve levy without providing a waste receptacle to a service for the levy. (3) Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a differential general rate that is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed. Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.35(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of gross rental value-rated vacant land. The PRESIDENT : Members might have observed that I have gone a bit differently in order today because I have given preference to the members who were here and stood at the beginning of question time. I might add that this extends to the responsibility of all members across the chamber with petitions and papers for tabling, including ministers and opposition frontbenchers. They have a responsibility to be here to handle their own business.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) The Minister for Local Government is not prepared to name these local governments, which include both metropolitan and non-metropolitan, as he has initiated a request with the State Solicitor’s Office to confirm noncompliance. (2) The following describes areas of noncompliance. Some local governments were found to be noncompliant in more than one area of the Local Government Act 1995. Six local governments did not obtain ministerial approval under section 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a differential general rate that is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed. Four local governments did not obtain ministerial approval under section 6.35(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of gross rental value–rated vacant land. Four local governments imposed a general minimum payment and a lesser minimum payment contrary to section 6.35(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 1995, which requires the general minimum to be applied to at least 50 per cent of the properties on which a minimum payment is imposed. In the instances, the greater number of properties are on the lesser minimum. Four local governments imposed a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of properties in a general differential category contrary to section 6.35(4) of the Local Government Act 1995. One local government imposed three different minimum payments when section 6.35(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 allows only a general minimum and a lesser minimum—two minimum payments. One local government imposed a specified area minimum payment when section 6.35(1) allows only a minimum payment to be imposed on a general rate and not on a specified area rate. One local government imposed a waste reserve levy without providing a waste receptacle to a service for the levy. (3) Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a differential general rate that is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed. Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.35(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of gross rental value-rated vacant land. The PRESIDENT : Members might have observed that I have gone a bit differently in order today because I have given preference to the members who were here and stood at the beginning of question time. I might add that this extends to the responsibility of all members across the chamber with petitions and papers for tabling, including ministers and opposition frontbenchers. They have a responsibility to be here to handle their own business.
(1) The Minister for Local Government is not prepared to name these local governments, which include both metropolitan and non-metropolitan, as he has initiated a request with the State Solicitor’s Office to confirm noncompliance. (2) The following describes areas of noncompliance. Some local governments were found to be noncompliant in more than one area of the Local Government Act 1995. Six local governments did not obtain ministerial approval under section 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a differential general rate that is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed. Four local governments did not obtain ministerial approval under section 6.35(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of gross rental value–rated vacant land. Four local governments imposed a general minimum payment and a lesser minimum payment contrary to section 6.35(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 1995, which requires the general minimum to be applied to at least 50 per cent of the properties on which a minimum payment is imposed. In the instances, the greater number of properties are on the lesser minimum. Four local governments imposed a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of properties in a general differential category contrary to section 6.35(4) of the Local Government Act 1995. One local government imposed three different minimum payments when section 6.35(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 allows only a general minimum and a lesser minimum—two minimum payments. One local government imposed a specified area minimum payment when section 6.35(1) allows only a minimum payment to be imposed on a general rate and not on a specified area rate. One local government imposed a waste reserve levy without providing a waste receptacle to a service for the levy. (3) Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a differential general rate that is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed. Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.35(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of gross rental value-rated vacant land. The PRESIDENT : Members might have observed that I have gone a bit differently in order today because I have given preference to the members who were here and stood at the beginning of question time. I might add that this extends to the responsibility of all members across the chamber with petitions and papers for tabling, including ministers and opposition frontbenchers. They have a responsibility to be here to handle their own business.
(2) The following describes areas of noncompliance. Some local governments were found to be noncompliant in more than one area of the Local Government Act 1995. Six local governments did not obtain ministerial approval under section 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a differential general rate that is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed. Four local governments did not obtain ministerial approval under section 6.35(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of gross rental value–rated vacant land. Four local governments imposed a general minimum payment and a lesser minimum payment contrary to section 6.35(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 1995, which requires the general minimum to be applied to at least 50 per cent of the properties on which a minimum payment is imposed. In the instances, the greater number of properties are on the lesser minimum. Four local governments imposed a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of properties in a general differential category contrary to section 6.35(4) of the Local Government Act 1995. One local government imposed three different minimum payments when section 6.35(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 allows only a general minimum and a lesser minimum—two minimum payments. One local government imposed a specified area minimum payment when section 6.35(1) allows only a minimum payment to be imposed on a general rate and not on a specified area rate. One local government imposed a waste reserve levy without providing a waste receptacle to a service for the levy. (3) Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a differential general rate that is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed. Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.35(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of gross rental value-rated vacant land. The PRESIDENT : Members might have observed that I have gone a bit differently in order today because I have given preference to the members who were here and stood at the beginning of question time. I might add that this extends to the responsibility of all members across the chamber with petitions and papers for tabling, including ministers and opposition frontbenchers. They have a responsibility to be here to handle their own business.
(3) Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a differential general rate that is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed. Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.35(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of gross rental value-rated vacant land. The PRESIDENT : Members might have observed that I have gone a bit differently in order today because I have given preference to the members who were here and stood at the beginning of question time. I might add that this extends to the responsibility of all members across the chamber with petitions and papers for tabling, including ministers and opposition frontbenchers. They have a responsibility to be here to handle their own business.
The PRESIDENT : Members might have observed that I have gone a bit differently in order today because I have given preference to the members who were here and stood at the beginning of question time. I might add that this extends to the responsibility of all members across the chamber with petitions and papers for tabling, including ministers and opposition frontbenchers. They have a responsibility to be here to handle their own business.
(1) Which 16 local governments were assessed as not complying? (2) In what way did each of those local governments fail to comply? (3) Which two local governments have points of noncompliance that can be addressed under Governor’s Orders? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) The Minister for Local Government is not prepared to name these local governments, which include both metropolitan and non-metropolitan, as he has initiated a request with the State Solicitor’s Office to confirm noncompliance. (2) The following describes areas of noncompliance. Some local governments were found to be noncompliant in more than one area of the Local Government Act 1995. Six local governments did not obtain ministerial approval under section 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a differential general rate that is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed. Four local governments did not obtain ministerial approval under section 6.35(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of gross rental value–rated vacant land. Four local governments imposed a general minimum payment and a lesser minimum payment contrary to section 6.35(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 1995, which requires the general minimum to be applied to at least 50 per cent of the properties on which a minimum payment is imposed. In the instances, the greater number of properties are on the lesser minimum. Four local governments imposed a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of properties in a general differential category contrary to section 6.35(4) of the Local Government Act 1995. One local government imposed three different minimum payments when section 6.35(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 allows only a general minimum and a lesser minimum—two minimum payments. One local government imposed a specified area minimum payment when section 6.35(1) allows only a minimum payment to be imposed on a general rate and not on a specified area rate. One local government imposed a waste reserve levy without providing a waste receptacle to a service for the levy. (3) Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a differential general rate that is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed. Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.35(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of gross rental value-rated vacant land. The PRESIDENT : Members might have observed that I have gone a bit differently in order today because I have given preference to the members who were here and stood at the beginning of question time. I might add that this extends to the responsibility of all members across the chamber with petitions and papers for tabling, including ministers and opposition frontbenchers. They have a responsibility to be here to handle their own business.
(2) In what way did each of those local governments fail to comply? (3) Which two local governments have points of noncompliance that can be addressed under Governor’s Orders? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) The Minister for Local Government is not prepared to name these local governments, which include both metropolitan and non-metropolitan, as he has initiated a request with the State Solicitor’s Office to confirm noncompliance. (2) The following describes areas of noncompliance. Some local governments were found to be noncompliant in more than one area of the Local Government Act 1995. Six local governments did not obtain ministerial approval under section 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a differential general rate that is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed. Four local governments did not obtain ministerial approval under section 6.35(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of gross rental value–rated vacant land. Four local governments imposed a general minimum payment and a lesser minimum payment contrary to section 6.35(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 1995, which requires the general minimum to be applied to at least 50 per cent of the properties on which a minimum payment is imposed. In the instances, the greater number of properties are on the lesser minimum. Four local governments imposed a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of properties in a general differential category contrary to section 6.35(4) of the Local Government Act 1995. One local government imposed three different minimum payments when section 6.35(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 allows only a general minimum and a lesser minimum—two minimum payments. One local government imposed a specified area minimum payment when section 6.35(1) allows only a minimum payment to be imposed on a general rate and not on a specified area rate. One local government imposed a waste reserve levy without providing a waste receptacle to a service for the levy. (3) Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a differential general rate that is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed. Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.35(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of gross rental value-rated vacant land. The PRESIDENT : Members might have observed that I have gone a bit differently in order today because I have given preference to the members who were here and stood at the beginning of question time. I might add that this extends to the responsibility of all members across the chamber with petitions and papers for tabling, including ministers and opposition frontbenchers. They have a responsibility to be here to handle their own business.
(3) Which two local governments have points of noncompliance that can be addressed under Governor’s Orders? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) The Minister for Local Government is not prepared to name these local governments, which include both metropolitan and non-metropolitan, as he has initiated a request with the State Solicitor’s Office to confirm noncompliance. (2) The following describes areas of noncompliance. Some local governments were found to be noncompliant in more than one area of the Local Government Act 1995. Six local governments did not obtain ministerial approval under section 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a differential general rate that is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed. Four local governments did not obtain ministerial approval under section 6.35(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of gross rental value–rated vacant land. Four local governments imposed a general minimum payment and a lesser minimum payment contrary to section 6.35(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 1995, which requires the general minimum to be applied to at least 50 per cent of the properties on which a minimum payment is imposed. In the instances, the greater number of properties are on the lesser minimum. Four local governments imposed a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of properties in a general differential category contrary to section 6.35(4) of the Local Government Act 1995. One local government imposed three different minimum payments when section 6.35(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 allows only a general minimum and a lesser minimum—two minimum payments. One local government imposed a specified area minimum payment when section 6.35(1) allows only a minimum payment to be imposed on a general rate and not on a specified area rate. One local government imposed a waste reserve levy without providing a waste receptacle to a service for the levy. (3) Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a differential general rate that is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed. Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.35(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of gross rental value-rated vacant land. The PRESIDENT : Members might have observed that I have gone a bit differently in order today because I have given preference to the members who were here and stood at the beginning of question time. I might add that this extends to the responsibility of all members across the chamber with petitions and papers for tabling, including ministers and opposition frontbenchers. They have a responsibility to be here to handle their own business.
Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) The Minister for Local Government is not prepared to name these local governments, which include both metropolitan and non-metropolitan, as he has initiated a request with the State Solicitor’s Office to confirm noncompliance. (2) The following describes areas of noncompliance. Some local governments were found to be noncompliant in more than one area of the Local Government Act 1995. Six local governments did not obtain ministerial approval under section 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a differential general rate that is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed. Four local governments did not obtain ministerial approval under section 6.35(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of gross rental value–rated vacant land. Four local governments imposed a general minimum payment and a lesser minimum payment contrary to section 6.35(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 1995, which requires the general minimum to be applied to at least 50 per cent of the properties on which a minimum payment is imposed. In the instances, the greater number of properties are on the lesser minimum. Four local governments imposed a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of properties in a general differential category contrary to section 6.35(4) of the Local Government Act 1995. One local government imposed three different minimum payments when section 6.35(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 allows only a general minimum and a lesser minimum—two minimum payments. One local government imposed a specified area minimum payment when section 6.35(1) allows only a minimum payment to be imposed on a general rate and not on a specified area rate. One local government imposed a waste reserve levy without providing a waste receptacle to a service for the levy. (3) Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a differential general rate that is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed. Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.35(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of gross rental value-rated vacant land. The PRESIDENT : Members might have observed that I have gone a bit differently in order today because I have given preference to the members who were here and stood at the beginning of question time. I might add that this extends to the responsibility of all members across the chamber with petitions and papers for tabling, including ministers and opposition frontbenchers. They have a responsibility to be here to handle their own business.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) The Minister for Local Government is not prepared to name these local governments, which include both metropolitan and non-metropolitan, as he has initiated a request with the State Solicitor’s Office to confirm noncompliance. (2) The following describes areas of noncompliance. Some local governments were found to be noncompliant in more than one area of the Local Government Act 1995. Six local governments did not obtain ministerial approval under section 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a differential general rate that is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed. Four local governments did not obtain ministerial approval under section 6.35(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of gross rental value–rated vacant land. Four local governments imposed a general minimum payment and a lesser minimum payment contrary to section 6.35(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 1995, which requires the general minimum to be applied to at least 50 per cent of the properties on which a minimum payment is imposed. In the instances, the greater number of properties are on the lesser minimum. Four local governments imposed a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of properties in a general differential category contrary to section 6.35(4) of the Local Government Act 1995. One local government imposed three different minimum payments when section 6.35(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 allows only a general minimum and a lesser minimum—two minimum payments. One local government imposed a specified area minimum payment when section 6.35(1) allows only a minimum payment to be imposed on a general rate and not on a specified area rate. One local government imposed a waste reserve levy without providing a waste receptacle to a service for the levy. (3) Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a differential general rate that is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed. Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.35(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of gross rental value-rated vacant land. The PRESIDENT : Members might have observed that I have gone a bit differently in order today because I have given preference to the members who were here and stood at the beginning of question time. I might add that this extends to the responsibility of all members across the chamber with petitions and papers for tabling, including ministers and opposition frontbenchers. They have a responsibility to be here to handle their own business.
(1) The Minister for Local Government is not prepared to name these local governments, which include both metropolitan and non-metropolitan, as he has initiated a request with the State Solicitor’s Office to confirm noncompliance. (2) The following describes areas of noncompliance. Some local governments were found to be noncompliant in more than one area of the Local Government Act 1995. Six local governments did not obtain ministerial approval under section 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a differential general rate that is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed. Four local governments did not obtain ministerial approval under section 6.35(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of gross rental value–rated vacant land. Four local governments imposed a general minimum payment and a lesser minimum payment contrary to section 6.35(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 1995, which requires the general minimum to be applied to at least 50 per cent of the properties on which a minimum payment is imposed. In the instances, the greater number of properties are on the lesser minimum. Four local governments imposed a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of properties in a general differential category contrary to section 6.35(4) of the Local Government Act 1995. One local government imposed three different minimum payments when section 6.35(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 allows only a general minimum and a lesser minimum—two minimum payments. One local government imposed a specified area minimum payment when section 6.35(1) allows only a minimum payment to be imposed on a general rate and not on a specified area rate. One local government imposed a waste reserve levy without providing a waste receptacle to a service for the levy. (3) Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a differential general rate that is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed. Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.35(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of gross rental value-rated vacant land. The PRESIDENT : Members might have observed that I have gone a bit differently in order today because I have given preference to the members who were here and stood at the beginning of question time. I might add that this extends to the responsibility of all members across the chamber with petitions and papers for tabling, including ministers and opposition frontbenchers. They have a responsibility to be here to handle their own business.
(2) The following describes areas of noncompliance. Some local governments were found to be noncompliant in more than one area of the Local Government Act 1995. Six local governments did not obtain ministerial approval under section 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a differential general rate that is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed. Four local governments did not obtain ministerial approval under section 6.35(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of gross rental value–rated vacant land. Four local governments imposed a general minimum payment and a lesser minimum payment contrary to section 6.35(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 1995, which requires the general minimum to be applied to at least 50 per cent of the properties on which a minimum payment is imposed. In the instances, the greater number of properties are on the lesser minimum. Four local governments imposed a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of properties in a general differential category contrary to section 6.35(4) of the Local Government Act 1995. One local government imposed three different minimum payments when section 6.35(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 allows only a general minimum and a lesser minimum—two minimum payments. One local government imposed a specified area minimum payment when section 6.35(1) allows only a minimum payment to be imposed on a general rate and not on a specified area rate. One local government imposed a waste reserve levy without providing a waste receptacle to a service for the levy. (3) Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a differential general rate that is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed. Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.35(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of gross rental value-rated vacant land. The PRESIDENT : Members might have observed that I have gone a bit differently in order today because I have given preference to the members who were here and stood at the beginning of question time. I might add that this extends to the responsibility of all members across the chamber with petitions and papers for tabling, including ministers and opposition frontbenchers. They have a responsibility to be here to handle their own business.
(3) Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a differential general rate that is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed. Ministerial approval was not obtained under section 6.35(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 before imposing a minimum payment on more than 50 per cent of gross rental value-rated vacant land. The PRESIDENT : Members might have observed that I have gone a bit differently in order today because I have given preference to the members who were here and stood at the beginning of question time. I might add that this extends to the responsibility of all members across the chamber with petitions and papers for tabling, including ministers and opposition frontbenchers. They have a responsibility to be here to handle their own business.
The PRESIDENT : Members might have observed that I have gone a bit differently in order today because I have given preference to the members who were here and stood at the beginning of question time. I might add that this extends to the responsibility of all members across the chamber with petitions and papers for tabling, including ministers and opposition frontbenchers. They have a responsibility to be here to handle their own business.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.