❓ Mr. Krsticevic asks about the impact of utility charges on the City of Stirling's rate increase. Premier Barnett responds critically, accusing the City of Stirling of misleading ratepayers by exaggerating the State Government's influence on the rate hike, highlighting employee costs as a major factor.
AnsweredQoN 438Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
city of stirling — RATES INCREASE
Yesterday the member for Warnbro rightly raised the issue of local government statements blaming the state government for some higher than necessary increases in rates. I received one of these in my rates notice from the City of Stirling. As the Premier committed to provide information on this situation, can he inform the house of what influence utility charges had on the City of Stirling’s 6.6 per cent increase in rates and on rates in general? Mr C.J. BARNETT
Yesterday the member for Warnbro rightly raised the issue of local government statements blaming the state government for some higher than necessary increases in rates. I received one of these in my rates notice from the City of Stirling. As the Premier committed to provide information on this situation, can he inform the house of what influence utility charges had on the City of Stirling’s 6.6 per cent increase in rates and on rates in general? Mr C.J. BARNETT
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question. Indeed, the member for Warnbro raised the issue of increases in charges. I have a copy of the brochure that was apparently sent to the 100 000 or so ratepayers who live in the City of Stirling. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Joondalup, there are opportunities to ask questions in this place all the time. I am formally going to call you for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : So you’re briefed on local government finances, but not on state government finances. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I formally call you for the first time as well. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Having now been given a copy of the flyer that went out with rate notices from the City of Stirling, I am a little concerned about this. I will not read the whole flyer to the house, but it is headed “Important Information for Ratepayers”. It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year — That is about twice the rate of inflation — as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Please listen. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will read it again because I think members have missed the point. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. These include: · Emergency Service Levy … · Electricity costs … · Water … · State Landfill Levy … There they are! So, the City of Stirling, with all its professional staff, and its elected council, has decided to send out this important information to its nearly 100 000 ratepayers. I would think that the City of Stirling would make an effort to be accurate. I would be quite concerned if the City of Stirling were to deliberately send out misleading information. That becomes a matter of propriety and public accountability. Let us just look at some figures from the City of Stirling. Let us look at the truth. Operating expenses in the budget for 2010–11 of the City of Stirling are set to increase by $18.9 million. So there will be an $18.9 million increase in expenditure. By the City of Stirling’s own figures, utility costs—that is electricity, water, gas—will go up by $2.1 million. By my approximate calculation, the rise in the City of Stirling’s total utility costs is about 10 per cent of the rise in its total operating expenditure. Indeed, what is the biggest rise in its operating expenditure? Does the member for Warnbro know? Did he do any research on this at all? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. He does not know. He does not have any idea. So, surprise, surprise to the long-suffering ratepayers of Stirling, employee costs are up $8.5 million. Forty-five per cent of the increase in the costs of the City of Stirling is employee costs. Maybe it has got too many staff, and maybe it pays them too much! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the member for the question. Indeed, the member for Warnbro raised the issue of increases in charges. I have a copy of the brochure that was apparently sent to the 100 000 or so ratepayers who live in the City of Stirling. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Joondalup, there are opportunities to ask questions in this place all the time. I am formally going to call you for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : So you’re briefed on local government finances, but not on state government finances. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I formally call you for the first time as well. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Having now been given a copy of the flyer that went out with rate notices from the City of Stirling, I am a little concerned about this. I will not read the whole flyer to the house, but it is headed “Important Information for Ratepayers”. It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year — That is about twice the rate of inflation — as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Please listen. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will read it again because I think members have missed the point. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. These include: · Emergency Service Levy … · Electricity costs … · Water … · State Landfill Levy … There they are! So, the City of Stirling, with all its professional staff, and its elected council, has decided to send out this important information to its nearly 100 000 ratepayers. I would think that the City of Stirling would make an effort to be accurate. I would be quite concerned if the City of Stirling were to deliberately send out misleading information. That becomes a matter of propriety and public accountability. Let us just look at some figures from the City of Stirling. Let us look at the truth. Operating expenses in the budget for 2010–11 of the City of Stirling are set to increase by $18.9 million. So there will be an $18.9 million increase in expenditure. By the City of Stirling’s own figures, utility costs—that is electricity, water, gas—will go up by $2.1 million. By my approximate calculation, the rise in the City of Stirling’s total utility costs is about 10 per cent of the rise in its total operating expenditure. Indeed, what is the biggest rise in its operating expenditure? Does the member for Warnbro know? Did he do any research on this at all? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. He does not know. He does not have any idea. So, surprise, surprise to the long-suffering ratepayers of Stirling, employee costs are up $8.5 million. Forty-five per cent of the increase in the costs of the City of Stirling is employee costs. Maybe it has got too many staff, and maybe it pays them too much! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
I thank the member for the question. Indeed, the member for Warnbro raised the issue of increases in charges. I have a copy of the brochure that was apparently sent to the 100 000 or so ratepayers who live in the City of Stirling. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Joondalup, there are opportunities to ask questions in this place all the time. I am formally going to call you for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : So you’re briefed on local government finances, but not on state government finances. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I formally call you for the first time as well. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Having now been given a copy of the flyer that went out with rate notices from the City of Stirling, I am a little concerned about this. I will not read the whole flyer to the house, but it is headed “Important Information for Ratepayers”. It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year — That is about twice the rate of inflation — as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Please listen. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will read it again because I think members have missed the point. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. These include: · Emergency Service Levy … · Electricity costs … · Water … · State Landfill Levy … There they are! So, the City of Stirling, with all its professional staff, and its elected council, has decided to send out this important information to its nearly 100 000 ratepayers. I would think that the City of Stirling would make an effort to be accurate. I would be quite concerned if the City of Stirling were to deliberately send out misleading information. That becomes a matter of propriety and public accountability. Let us just look at some figures from the City of Stirling. Let us look at the truth. Operating expenses in the budget for 2010–11 of the City of Stirling are set to increase by $18.9 million. So there will be an $18.9 million increase in expenditure. By the City of Stirling’s own figures, utility costs—that is electricity, water, gas—will go up by $2.1 million. By my approximate calculation, the rise in the City of Stirling’s total utility costs is about 10 per cent of the rise in its total operating expenditure. Indeed, what is the biggest rise in its operating expenditure? Does the member for Warnbro know? Did he do any research on this at all? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. He does not know. He does not have any idea. So, surprise, surprise to the long-suffering ratepayers of Stirling, employee costs are up $8.5 million. Forty-five per cent of the increase in the costs of the City of Stirling is employee costs. Maybe it has got too many staff, and maybe it pays them too much! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Joondalup, there are opportunities to ask questions in this place all the time. I am formally going to call you for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : So you’re briefed on local government finances, but not on state government finances. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I formally call you for the first time as well. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Having now been given a copy of the flyer that went out with rate notices from the City of Stirling, I am a little concerned about this. I will not read the whole flyer to the house, but it is headed “Important Information for Ratepayers”. It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year — That is about twice the rate of inflation — as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Please listen. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will read it again because I think members have missed the point. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. These include: · Emergency Service Levy … · Electricity costs … · Water … · State Landfill Levy … There they are! So, the City of Stirling, with all its professional staff, and its elected council, has decided to send out this important information to its nearly 100 000 ratepayers. I would think that the City of Stirling would make an effort to be accurate. I would be quite concerned if the City of Stirling were to deliberately send out misleading information. That becomes a matter of propriety and public accountability. Let us just look at some figures from the City of Stirling. Let us look at the truth. Operating expenses in the budget for 2010–11 of the City of Stirling are set to increase by $18.9 million. So there will be an $18.9 million increase in expenditure. By the City of Stirling’s own figures, utility costs—that is electricity, water, gas—will go up by $2.1 million. By my approximate calculation, the rise in the City of Stirling’s total utility costs is about 10 per cent of the rise in its total operating expenditure. Indeed, what is the biggest rise in its operating expenditure? Does the member for Warnbro know? Did he do any research on this at all? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. He does not know. He does not have any idea. So, surprise, surprise to the long-suffering ratepayers of Stirling, employee costs are up $8.5 million. Forty-five per cent of the increase in the costs of the City of Stirling is employee costs. Maybe it has got too many staff, and maybe it pays them too much! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
The SPEAKER : Member for Joondalup, there are opportunities to ask questions in this place all the time. I am formally going to call you for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : So you’re briefed on local government finances, but not on state government finances. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I formally call you for the first time as well. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Having now been given a copy of the flyer that went out with rate notices from the City of Stirling, I am a little concerned about this. I will not read the whole flyer to the house, but it is headed “Important Information for Ratepayers”. It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year — That is about twice the rate of inflation — as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Please listen. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will read it again because I think members have missed the point. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. These include: · Emergency Service Levy … · Electricity costs … · Water … · State Landfill Levy … There they are! So, the City of Stirling, with all its professional staff, and its elected council, has decided to send out this important information to its nearly 100 000 ratepayers. I would think that the City of Stirling would make an effort to be accurate. I would be quite concerned if the City of Stirling were to deliberately send out misleading information. That becomes a matter of propriety and public accountability. Let us just look at some figures from the City of Stirling. Let us look at the truth. Operating expenses in the budget for 2010–11 of the City of Stirling are set to increase by $18.9 million. So there will be an $18.9 million increase in expenditure. By the City of Stirling’s own figures, utility costs—that is electricity, water, gas—will go up by $2.1 million. By my approximate calculation, the rise in the City of Stirling’s total utility costs is about 10 per cent of the rise in its total operating expenditure. Indeed, what is the biggest rise in its operating expenditure? Does the member for Warnbro know? Did he do any research on this at all? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. He does not know. He does not have any idea. So, surprise, surprise to the long-suffering ratepayers of Stirling, employee costs are up $8.5 million. Forty-five per cent of the increase in the costs of the City of Stirling is employee costs. Maybe it has got too many staff, and maybe it pays them too much! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
Mr E.S. Ripper : So you’re briefed on local government finances, but not on state government finances. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I formally call you for the first time as well. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Having now been given a copy of the flyer that went out with rate notices from the City of Stirling, I am a little concerned about this. I will not read the whole flyer to the house, but it is headed “Important Information for Ratepayers”. It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year — That is about twice the rate of inflation — as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Please listen. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will read it again because I think members have missed the point. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. These include: · Emergency Service Levy … · Electricity costs … · Water … · State Landfill Levy … There they are! So, the City of Stirling, with all its professional staff, and its elected council, has decided to send out this important information to its nearly 100 000 ratepayers. I would think that the City of Stirling would make an effort to be accurate. I would be quite concerned if the City of Stirling were to deliberately send out misleading information. That becomes a matter of propriety and public accountability. Let us just look at some figures from the City of Stirling. Let us look at the truth. Operating expenses in the budget for 2010–11 of the City of Stirling are set to increase by $18.9 million. So there will be an $18.9 million increase in expenditure. By the City of Stirling’s own figures, utility costs—that is electricity, water, gas—will go up by $2.1 million. By my approximate calculation, the rise in the City of Stirling’s total utility costs is about 10 per cent of the rise in its total operating expenditure. Indeed, what is the biggest rise in its operating expenditure? Does the member for Warnbro know? Did he do any research on this at all? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. He does not know. He does not have any idea. So, surprise, surprise to the long-suffering ratepayers of Stirling, employee costs are up $8.5 million. Forty-five per cent of the increase in the costs of the City of Stirling is employee costs. Maybe it has got too many staff, and maybe it pays them too much! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I formally call you for the first time as well. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Having now been given a copy of the flyer that went out with rate notices from the City of Stirling, I am a little concerned about this. I will not read the whole flyer to the house, but it is headed “Important Information for Ratepayers”. It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year — That is about twice the rate of inflation — as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Please listen. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will read it again because I think members have missed the point. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. These include: · Emergency Service Levy … · Electricity costs … · Water … · State Landfill Levy … There they are! So, the City of Stirling, with all its professional staff, and its elected council, has decided to send out this important information to its nearly 100 000 ratepayers. I would think that the City of Stirling would make an effort to be accurate. I would be quite concerned if the City of Stirling were to deliberately send out misleading information. That becomes a matter of propriety and public accountability. Let us just look at some figures from the City of Stirling. Let us look at the truth. Operating expenses in the budget for 2010–11 of the City of Stirling are set to increase by $18.9 million. So there will be an $18.9 million increase in expenditure. By the City of Stirling’s own figures, utility costs—that is electricity, water, gas—will go up by $2.1 million. By my approximate calculation, the rise in the City of Stirling’s total utility costs is about 10 per cent of the rise in its total operating expenditure. Indeed, what is the biggest rise in its operating expenditure? Does the member for Warnbro know? Did he do any research on this at all? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. He does not know. He does not have any idea. So, surprise, surprise to the long-suffering ratepayers of Stirling, employee costs are up $8.5 million. Forty-five per cent of the increase in the costs of the City of Stirling is employee costs. Maybe it has got too many staff, and maybe it pays them too much! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Having now been given a copy of the flyer that went out with rate notices from the City of Stirling, I am a little concerned about this. I will not read the whole flyer to the house, but it is headed “Important Information for Ratepayers”. It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year — That is about twice the rate of inflation — as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Please listen. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will read it again because I think members have missed the point. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. These include: · Emergency Service Levy … · Electricity costs … · Water … · State Landfill Levy … There they are! So, the City of Stirling, with all its professional staff, and its elected council, has decided to send out this important information to its nearly 100 000 ratepayers. I would think that the City of Stirling would make an effort to be accurate. I would be quite concerned if the City of Stirling were to deliberately send out misleading information. That becomes a matter of propriety and public accountability. Let us just look at some figures from the City of Stirling. Let us look at the truth. Operating expenses in the budget for 2010–11 of the City of Stirling are set to increase by $18.9 million. So there will be an $18.9 million increase in expenditure. By the City of Stirling’s own figures, utility costs—that is electricity, water, gas—will go up by $2.1 million. By my approximate calculation, the rise in the City of Stirling’s total utility costs is about 10 per cent of the rise in its total operating expenditure. Indeed, what is the biggest rise in its operating expenditure? Does the member for Warnbro know? Did he do any research on this at all? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. He does not know. He does not have any idea. So, surprise, surprise to the long-suffering ratepayers of Stirling, employee costs are up $8.5 million. Forty-five per cent of the increase in the costs of the City of Stirling is employee costs. Maybe it has got too many staff, and maybe it pays them too much! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Please listen. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will read it again because I think members have missed the point. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. These include: · Emergency Service Levy … · Electricity costs … · Water … · State Landfill Levy … There they are! So, the City of Stirling, with all its professional staff, and its elected council, has decided to send out this important information to its nearly 100 000 ratepayers. I would think that the City of Stirling would make an effort to be accurate. I would be quite concerned if the City of Stirling were to deliberately send out misleading information. That becomes a matter of propriety and public accountability. Let us just look at some figures from the City of Stirling. Let us look at the truth. Operating expenses in the budget for 2010–11 of the City of Stirling are set to increase by $18.9 million. So there will be an $18.9 million increase in expenditure. By the City of Stirling’s own figures, utility costs—that is electricity, water, gas—will go up by $2.1 million. By my approximate calculation, the rise in the City of Stirling’s total utility costs is about 10 per cent of the rise in its total operating expenditure. Indeed, what is the biggest rise in its operating expenditure? Does the member for Warnbro know? Did he do any research on this at all? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. He does not know. He does not have any idea. So, surprise, surprise to the long-suffering ratepayers of Stirling, employee costs are up $8.5 million. Forty-five per cent of the increase in the costs of the City of Stirling is employee costs. Maybe it has got too many staff, and maybe it pays them too much! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will read it again because I think members have missed the point. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. These include: · Emergency Service Levy … · Electricity costs … · Water … · State Landfill Levy … There they are! So, the City of Stirling, with all its professional staff, and its elected council, has decided to send out this important information to its nearly 100 000 ratepayers. I would think that the City of Stirling would make an effort to be accurate. I would be quite concerned if the City of Stirling were to deliberately send out misleading information. That becomes a matter of propriety and public accountability. Let us just look at some figures from the City of Stirling. Let us look at the truth. Operating expenses in the budget for 2010–11 of the City of Stirling are set to increase by $18.9 million. So there will be an $18.9 million increase in expenditure. By the City of Stirling’s own figures, utility costs—that is electricity, water, gas—will go up by $2.1 million. By my approximate calculation, the rise in the City of Stirling’s total utility costs is about 10 per cent of the rise in its total operating expenditure. Indeed, what is the biggest rise in its operating expenditure? Does the member for Warnbro know? Did he do any research on this at all? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. He does not know. He does not have any idea. So, surprise, surprise to the long-suffering ratepayers of Stirling, employee costs are up $8.5 million. Forty-five per cent of the increase in the costs of the City of Stirling is employee costs. Maybe it has got too many staff, and maybe it pays them too much! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will read it again because I think members have missed the point. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. These include: · Emergency Service Levy … · Electricity costs … · Water … · State Landfill Levy … There they are! So, the City of Stirling, with all its professional staff, and its elected council, has decided to send out this important information to its nearly 100 000 ratepayers. I would think that the City of Stirling would make an effort to be accurate. I would be quite concerned if the City of Stirling were to deliberately send out misleading information. That becomes a matter of propriety and public accountability. Let us just look at some figures from the City of Stirling. Let us look at the truth. Operating expenses in the budget for 2010–11 of the City of Stirling are set to increase by $18.9 million. So there will be an $18.9 million increase in expenditure. By the City of Stirling’s own figures, utility costs—that is electricity, water, gas—will go up by $2.1 million. By my approximate calculation, the rise in the City of Stirling’s total utility costs is about 10 per cent of the rise in its total operating expenditure. Indeed, what is the biggest rise in its operating expenditure? Does the member for Warnbro know? Did he do any research on this at all? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. He does not know. He does not have any idea. So, surprise, surprise to the long-suffering ratepayers of Stirling, employee costs are up $8.5 million. Forty-five per cent of the increase in the costs of the City of Stirling is employee costs. Maybe it has got too many staff, and maybe it pays them too much! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. These include: · Emergency Service Levy … · Electricity costs … · Water … · State Landfill Levy … There they are! So, the City of Stirling, with all its professional staff, and its elected council, has decided to send out this important information to its nearly 100 000 ratepayers. I would think that the City of Stirling would make an effort to be accurate. I would be quite concerned if the City of Stirling were to deliberately send out misleading information. That becomes a matter of propriety and public accountability. Let us just look at some figures from the City of Stirling. Let us look at the truth. Operating expenses in the budget for 2010–11 of the City of Stirling are set to increase by $18.9 million. So there will be an $18.9 million increase in expenditure. By the City of Stirling’s own figures, utility costs—that is electricity, water, gas—will go up by $2.1 million. By my approximate calculation, the rise in the City of Stirling’s total utility costs is about 10 per cent of the rise in its total operating expenditure. Indeed, what is the biggest rise in its operating expenditure? Does the member for Warnbro know? Did he do any research on this at all? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. He does not know. He does not have any idea. So, surprise, surprise to the long-suffering ratepayers of Stirling, employee costs are up $8.5 million. Forty-five per cent of the increase in the costs of the City of Stirling is employee costs. Maybe it has got too many staff, and maybe it pays them too much! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. These include: · Emergency Service Levy … · Electricity costs … · Water … · State Landfill Levy … There they are! So, the City of Stirling, with all its professional staff, and its elected council, has decided to send out this important information to its nearly 100 000 ratepayers. I would think that the City of Stirling would make an effort to be accurate. I would be quite concerned if the City of Stirling were to deliberately send out misleading information. That becomes a matter of propriety and public accountability. Let us just look at some figures from the City of Stirling. Let us look at the truth. Operating expenses in the budget for 2010–11 of the City of Stirling are set to increase by $18.9 million. So there will be an $18.9 million increase in expenditure. By the City of Stirling’s own figures, utility costs—that is electricity, water, gas—will go up by $2.1 million. By my approximate calculation, the rise in the City of Stirling’s total utility costs is about 10 per cent of the rise in its total operating expenditure. Indeed, what is the biggest rise in its operating expenditure? Does the member for Warnbro know? Did he do any research on this at all? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. He does not know. He does not have any idea. So, surprise, surprise to the long-suffering ratepayers of Stirling, employee costs are up $8.5 million. Forty-five per cent of the increase in the costs of the City of Stirling is employee costs. Maybe it has got too many staff, and maybe it pays them too much! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
· Emergency Service Levy … · Electricity costs … · Water … · State Landfill Levy …
Let us just look at some figures from the City of Stirling. Let us look at the truth. Operating expenses in the budget for 2010–11 of the City of Stirling are set to increase by $18.9 million. So there will be an $18.9 million increase in expenditure. By the City of Stirling’s own figures, utility costs—that is electricity, water, gas—will go up by $2.1 million. By my approximate calculation, the rise in the City of Stirling’s total utility costs is about 10 per cent of the rise in its total operating expenditure. Indeed, what is the biggest rise in its operating expenditure? Does the member for Warnbro know? Did he do any research on this at all? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. He does not know. He does not have any idea. So, surprise, surprise to the long-suffering ratepayers of Stirling, employee costs are up $8.5 million. Forty-five per cent of the increase in the costs of the City of Stirling is employee costs. Maybe it has got too many staff, and maybe it pays them too much! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. He does not know. He does not have any idea. So, surprise, surprise to the long-suffering ratepayers of Stirling, employee costs are up $8.5 million. Forty-five per cent of the increase in the costs of the City of Stirling is employee costs. Maybe it has got too many staff, and maybe it pays them too much! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. He does not know. He does not have any idea. So, surprise, surprise to the long-suffering ratepayers of Stirling, employee costs are up $8.5 million. Forty-five per cent of the increase in the costs of the City of Stirling is employee costs. Maybe it has got too many staff, and maybe it pays them too much! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the member for the question. Indeed, the member for Warnbro raised the issue of increases in charges. I have a copy of the brochure that was apparently sent to the 100 000 or so ratepayers who live in the City of Stirling. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Joondalup, there are opportunities to ask questions in this place all the time. I am formally going to call you for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : So you’re briefed on local government finances, but not on state government finances. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I formally call you for the first time as well. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Having now been given a copy of the flyer that went out with rate notices from the City of Stirling, I am a little concerned about this. I will not read the whole flyer to the house, but it is headed “Important Information for Ratepayers”. It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year — That is about twice the rate of inflation — as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Please listen. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will read it again because I think members have missed the point. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. These include: · Emergency Service Levy … · Electricity costs … · Water … · State Landfill Levy … There they are! So, the City of Stirling, with all its professional staff, and its elected council, has decided to send out this important information to its nearly 100 000 ratepayers. I would think that the City of Stirling would make an effort to be accurate. I would be quite concerned if the City of Stirling were to deliberately send out misleading information. That becomes a matter of propriety and public accountability. Let us just look at some figures from the City of Stirling. Let us look at the truth. Operating expenses in the budget for 2010–11 of the City of Stirling are set to increase by $18.9 million. So there will be an $18.9 million increase in expenditure. By the City of Stirling’s own figures, utility costs—that is electricity, water, gas—will go up by $2.1 million. By my approximate calculation, the rise in the City of Stirling’s total utility costs is about 10 per cent of the rise in its total operating expenditure. Indeed, what is the biggest rise in its operating expenditure? Does the member for Warnbro know? Did he do any research on this at all? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. He does not know. He does not have any idea. So, surprise, surprise to the long-suffering ratepayers of Stirling, employee costs are up $8.5 million. Forty-five per cent of the increase in the costs of the City of Stirling is employee costs. Maybe it has got too many staff, and maybe it pays them too much! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
I thank the member for the question. Indeed, the member for Warnbro raised the issue of increases in charges. I have a copy of the brochure that was apparently sent to the 100 000 or so ratepayers who live in the City of Stirling. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Joondalup, there are opportunities to ask questions in this place all the time. I am formally going to call you for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : So you’re briefed on local government finances, but not on state government finances. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I formally call you for the first time as well. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Having now been given a copy of the flyer that went out with rate notices from the City of Stirling, I am a little concerned about this. I will not read the whole flyer to the house, but it is headed “Important Information for Ratepayers”. It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year — That is about twice the rate of inflation — as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Please listen. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will read it again because I think members have missed the point. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. These include: · Emergency Service Levy … · Electricity costs … · Water … · State Landfill Levy … There they are! So, the City of Stirling, with all its professional staff, and its elected council, has decided to send out this important information to its nearly 100 000 ratepayers. I would think that the City of Stirling would make an effort to be accurate. I would be quite concerned if the City of Stirling were to deliberately send out misleading information. That becomes a matter of propriety and public accountability. Let us just look at some figures from the City of Stirling. Let us look at the truth. Operating expenses in the budget for 2010–11 of the City of Stirling are set to increase by $18.9 million. So there will be an $18.9 million increase in expenditure. By the City of Stirling’s own figures, utility costs—that is electricity, water, gas—will go up by $2.1 million. By my approximate calculation, the rise in the City of Stirling’s total utility costs is about 10 per cent of the rise in its total operating expenditure. Indeed, what is the biggest rise in its operating expenditure? Does the member for Warnbro know? Did he do any research on this at all? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. He does not know. He does not have any idea. So, surprise, surprise to the long-suffering ratepayers of Stirling, employee costs are up $8.5 million. Forty-five per cent of the increase in the costs of the City of Stirling is employee costs. Maybe it has got too many staff, and maybe it pays them too much! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Joondalup, there are opportunities to ask questions in this place all the time. I am formally going to call you for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : So you’re briefed on local government finances, but not on state government finances. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I formally call you for the first time as well. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Having now been given a copy of the flyer that went out with rate notices from the City of Stirling, I am a little concerned about this. I will not read the whole flyer to the house, but it is headed “Important Information for Ratepayers”. It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year — That is about twice the rate of inflation — as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Please listen. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will read it again because I think members have missed the point. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. These include: · Emergency Service Levy … · Electricity costs … · Water … · State Landfill Levy … There they are! So, the City of Stirling, with all its professional staff, and its elected council, has decided to send out this important information to its nearly 100 000 ratepayers. I would think that the City of Stirling would make an effort to be accurate. I would be quite concerned if the City of Stirling were to deliberately send out misleading information. That becomes a matter of propriety and public accountability. Let us just look at some figures from the City of Stirling. Let us look at the truth. Operating expenses in the budget for 2010–11 of the City of Stirling are set to increase by $18.9 million. So there will be an $18.9 million increase in expenditure. By the City of Stirling’s own figures, utility costs—that is electricity, water, gas—will go up by $2.1 million. By my approximate calculation, the rise in the City of Stirling’s total utility costs is about 10 per cent of the rise in its total operating expenditure. Indeed, what is the biggest rise in its operating expenditure? Does the member for Warnbro know? Did he do any research on this at all? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. He does not know. He does not have any idea. So, surprise, surprise to the long-suffering ratepayers of Stirling, employee costs are up $8.5 million. Forty-five per cent of the increase in the costs of the City of Stirling is employee costs. Maybe it has got too many staff, and maybe it pays them too much! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
The SPEAKER : Member for Joondalup, there are opportunities to ask questions in this place all the time. I am formally going to call you for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : So you’re briefed on local government finances, but not on state government finances. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I formally call you for the first time as well. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Having now been given a copy of the flyer that went out with rate notices from the City of Stirling, I am a little concerned about this. I will not read the whole flyer to the house, but it is headed “Important Information for Ratepayers”. It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year — That is about twice the rate of inflation — as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Please listen. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will read it again because I think members have missed the point. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. These include: · Emergency Service Levy … · Electricity costs … · Water … · State Landfill Levy … There they are! So, the City of Stirling, with all its professional staff, and its elected council, has decided to send out this important information to its nearly 100 000 ratepayers. I would think that the City of Stirling would make an effort to be accurate. I would be quite concerned if the City of Stirling were to deliberately send out misleading information. That becomes a matter of propriety and public accountability. Let us just look at some figures from the City of Stirling. Let us look at the truth. Operating expenses in the budget for 2010–11 of the City of Stirling are set to increase by $18.9 million. So there will be an $18.9 million increase in expenditure. By the City of Stirling’s own figures, utility costs—that is electricity, water, gas—will go up by $2.1 million. By my approximate calculation, the rise in the City of Stirling’s total utility costs is about 10 per cent of the rise in its total operating expenditure. Indeed, what is the biggest rise in its operating expenditure? Does the member for Warnbro know? Did he do any research on this at all? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. He does not know. He does not have any idea. So, surprise, surprise to the long-suffering ratepayers of Stirling, employee costs are up $8.5 million. Forty-five per cent of the increase in the costs of the City of Stirling is employee costs. Maybe it has got too many staff, and maybe it pays them too much! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
Mr E.S. Ripper : So you’re briefed on local government finances, but not on state government finances. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I formally call you for the first time as well. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Having now been given a copy of the flyer that went out with rate notices from the City of Stirling, I am a little concerned about this. I will not read the whole flyer to the house, but it is headed “Important Information for Ratepayers”. It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year — That is about twice the rate of inflation — as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Please listen. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will read it again because I think members have missed the point. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. These include: · Emergency Service Levy … · Electricity costs … · Water … · State Landfill Levy … There they are! So, the City of Stirling, with all its professional staff, and its elected council, has decided to send out this important information to its nearly 100 000 ratepayers. I would think that the City of Stirling would make an effort to be accurate. I would be quite concerned if the City of Stirling were to deliberately send out misleading information. That becomes a matter of propriety and public accountability. Let us just look at some figures from the City of Stirling. Let us look at the truth. Operating expenses in the budget for 2010–11 of the City of Stirling are set to increase by $18.9 million. So there will be an $18.9 million increase in expenditure. By the City of Stirling’s own figures, utility costs—that is electricity, water, gas—will go up by $2.1 million. By my approximate calculation, the rise in the City of Stirling’s total utility costs is about 10 per cent of the rise in its total operating expenditure. Indeed, what is the biggest rise in its operating expenditure? Does the member for Warnbro know? Did he do any research on this at all? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. He does not know. He does not have any idea. So, surprise, surprise to the long-suffering ratepayers of Stirling, employee costs are up $8.5 million. Forty-five per cent of the increase in the costs of the City of Stirling is employee costs. Maybe it has got too many staff, and maybe it pays them too much! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition, I formally call you for the first time as well. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Having now been given a copy of the flyer that went out with rate notices from the City of Stirling, I am a little concerned about this. I will not read the whole flyer to the house, but it is headed “Important Information for Ratepayers”. It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year — That is about twice the rate of inflation — as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Please listen. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will read it again because I think members have missed the point. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. These include: · Emergency Service Levy … · Electricity costs … · Water … · State Landfill Levy … There they are! So, the City of Stirling, with all its professional staff, and its elected council, has decided to send out this important information to its nearly 100 000 ratepayers. I would think that the City of Stirling would make an effort to be accurate. I would be quite concerned if the City of Stirling were to deliberately send out misleading information. That becomes a matter of propriety and public accountability. Let us just look at some figures from the City of Stirling. Let us look at the truth. Operating expenses in the budget for 2010–11 of the City of Stirling are set to increase by $18.9 million. So there will be an $18.9 million increase in expenditure. By the City of Stirling’s own figures, utility costs—that is electricity, water, gas—will go up by $2.1 million. By my approximate calculation, the rise in the City of Stirling’s total utility costs is about 10 per cent of the rise in its total operating expenditure. Indeed, what is the biggest rise in its operating expenditure? Does the member for Warnbro know? Did he do any research on this at all? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. He does not know. He does not have any idea. So, surprise, surprise to the long-suffering ratepayers of Stirling, employee costs are up $8.5 million. Forty-five per cent of the increase in the costs of the City of Stirling is employee costs. Maybe it has got too many staff, and maybe it pays them too much! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Having now been given a copy of the flyer that went out with rate notices from the City of Stirling, I am a little concerned about this. I will not read the whole flyer to the house, but it is headed “Important Information for Ratepayers”. It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year — That is about twice the rate of inflation — as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Please listen. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will read it again because I think members have missed the point. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. These include: · Emergency Service Levy … · Electricity costs … · Water … · State Landfill Levy … There they are! So, the City of Stirling, with all its professional staff, and its elected council, has decided to send out this important information to its nearly 100 000 ratepayers. I would think that the City of Stirling would make an effort to be accurate. I would be quite concerned if the City of Stirling were to deliberately send out misleading information. That becomes a matter of propriety and public accountability. Let us just look at some figures from the City of Stirling. Let us look at the truth. Operating expenses in the budget for 2010–11 of the City of Stirling are set to increase by $18.9 million. So there will be an $18.9 million increase in expenditure. By the City of Stirling’s own figures, utility costs—that is electricity, water, gas—will go up by $2.1 million. By my approximate calculation, the rise in the City of Stirling’s total utility costs is about 10 per cent of the rise in its total operating expenditure. Indeed, what is the biggest rise in its operating expenditure? Does the member for Warnbro know? Did he do any research on this at all? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. He does not know. He does not have any idea. So, surprise, surprise to the long-suffering ratepayers of Stirling, employee costs are up $8.5 million. Forty-five per cent of the increase in the costs of the City of Stirling is employee costs. Maybe it has got too many staff, and maybe it pays them too much! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Please listen. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will read it again because I think members have missed the point. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. These include: · Emergency Service Levy … · Electricity costs … · Water … · State Landfill Levy … There they are! So, the City of Stirling, with all its professional staff, and its elected council, has decided to send out this important information to its nearly 100 000 ratepayers. I would think that the City of Stirling would make an effort to be accurate. I would be quite concerned if the City of Stirling were to deliberately send out misleading information. That becomes a matter of propriety and public accountability. Let us just look at some figures from the City of Stirling. Let us look at the truth. Operating expenses in the budget for 2010–11 of the City of Stirling are set to increase by $18.9 million. So there will be an $18.9 million increase in expenditure. By the City of Stirling’s own figures, utility costs—that is electricity, water, gas—will go up by $2.1 million. By my approximate calculation, the rise in the City of Stirling’s total utility costs is about 10 per cent of the rise in its total operating expenditure. Indeed, what is the biggest rise in its operating expenditure? Does the member for Warnbro know? Did he do any research on this at all? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. He does not know. He does not have any idea. So, surprise, surprise to the long-suffering ratepayers of Stirling, employee costs are up $8.5 million. Forty-five per cent of the increase in the costs of the City of Stirling is employee costs. Maybe it has got too many staff, and maybe it pays them too much! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will read it again because I think members have missed the point. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. These include: · Emergency Service Levy … · Electricity costs … · Water … · State Landfill Levy … There they are! So, the City of Stirling, with all its professional staff, and its elected council, has decided to send out this important information to its nearly 100 000 ratepayers. I would think that the City of Stirling would make an effort to be accurate. I would be quite concerned if the City of Stirling were to deliberately send out misleading information. That becomes a matter of propriety and public accountability. Let us just look at some figures from the City of Stirling. Let us look at the truth. Operating expenses in the budget for 2010–11 of the City of Stirling are set to increase by $18.9 million. So there will be an $18.9 million increase in expenditure. By the City of Stirling’s own figures, utility costs—that is electricity, water, gas—will go up by $2.1 million. By my approximate calculation, the rise in the City of Stirling’s total utility costs is about 10 per cent of the rise in its total operating expenditure. Indeed, what is the biggest rise in its operating expenditure? Does the member for Warnbro know? Did he do any research on this at all? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. He does not know. He does not have any idea. So, surprise, surprise to the long-suffering ratepayers of Stirling, employee costs are up $8.5 million. Forty-five per cent of the increase in the costs of the City of Stirling is employee costs. Maybe it has got too many staff, and maybe it pays them too much! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will read it again because I think members have missed the point. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. These include: · Emergency Service Levy … · Electricity costs … · Water … · State Landfill Levy … There they are! So, the City of Stirling, with all its professional staff, and its elected council, has decided to send out this important information to its nearly 100 000 ratepayers. I would think that the City of Stirling would make an effort to be accurate. I would be quite concerned if the City of Stirling were to deliberately send out misleading information. That becomes a matter of propriety and public accountability. Let us just look at some figures from the City of Stirling. Let us look at the truth. Operating expenses in the budget for 2010–11 of the City of Stirling are set to increase by $18.9 million. So there will be an $18.9 million increase in expenditure. By the City of Stirling’s own figures, utility costs—that is electricity, water, gas—will go up by $2.1 million. By my approximate calculation, the rise in the City of Stirling’s total utility costs is about 10 per cent of the rise in its total operating expenditure. Indeed, what is the biggest rise in its operating expenditure? Does the member for Warnbro know? Did he do any research on this at all? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. He does not know. He does not have any idea. So, surprise, surprise to the long-suffering ratepayers of Stirling, employee costs are up $8.5 million. Forty-five per cent of the increase in the costs of the City of Stirling is employee costs. Maybe it has got too many staff, and maybe it pays them too much! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. These include: · Emergency Service Levy … · Electricity costs … · Water … · State Landfill Levy … There they are! So, the City of Stirling, with all its professional staff, and its elected council, has decided to send out this important information to its nearly 100 000 ratepayers. I would think that the City of Stirling would make an effort to be accurate. I would be quite concerned if the City of Stirling were to deliberately send out misleading information. That becomes a matter of propriety and public accountability. Let us just look at some figures from the City of Stirling. Let us look at the truth. Operating expenses in the budget for 2010–11 of the City of Stirling are set to increase by $18.9 million. So there will be an $18.9 million increase in expenditure. By the City of Stirling’s own figures, utility costs—that is electricity, water, gas—will go up by $2.1 million. By my approximate calculation, the rise in the City of Stirling’s total utility costs is about 10 per cent of the rise in its total operating expenditure. Indeed, what is the biggest rise in its operating expenditure? Does the member for Warnbro know? Did he do any research on this at all? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. He does not know. He does not have any idea. So, surprise, surprise to the long-suffering ratepayers of Stirling, employee costs are up $8.5 million. Forty-five per cent of the increase in the costs of the City of Stirling is employee costs. Maybe it has got too many staff, and maybe it pays them too much! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : It states — City of Stirling rates have increased by 6.6% this year as they have been impacted on by increased State Government charges that are beyond our control. These include: · Emergency Service Levy … · Electricity costs … · Water … · State Landfill Levy … There they are! So, the City of Stirling, with all its professional staff, and its elected council, has decided to send out this important information to its nearly 100 000 ratepayers. I would think that the City of Stirling would make an effort to be accurate. I would be quite concerned if the City of Stirling were to deliberately send out misleading information. That becomes a matter of propriety and public accountability. Let us just look at some figures from the City of Stirling. Let us look at the truth. Operating expenses in the budget for 2010–11 of the City of Stirling are set to increase by $18.9 million. So there will be an $18.9 million increase in expenditure. By the City of Stirling’s own figures, utility costs—that is electricity, water, gas—will go up by $2.1 million. By my approximate calculation, the rise in the City of Stirling’s total utility costs is about 10 per cent of the rise in its total operating expenditure. Indeed, what is the biggest rise in its operating expenditure? Does the member for Warnbro know? Did he do any research on this at all? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. He does not know. He does not have any idea. So, surprise, surprise to the long-suffering ratepayers of Stirling, employee costs are up $8.5 million. Forty-five per cent of the increase in the costs of the City of Stirling is employee costs. Maybe it has got too many staff, and maybe it pays them too much! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
· Emergency Service Levy … · Electricity costs … · Water … · State Landfill Levy …
Let us just look at some figures from the City of Stirling. Let us look at the truth. Operating expenses in the budget for 2010–11 of the City of Stirling are set to increase by $18.9 million. So there will be an $18.9 million increase in expenditure. By the City of Stirling’s own figures, utility costs—that is electricity, water, gas—will go up by $2.1 million. By my approximate calculation, the rise in the City of Stirling’s total utility costs is about 10 per cent of the rise in its total operating expenditure. Indeed, what is the biggest rise in its operating expenditure? Does the member for Warnbro know? Did he do any research on this at all? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. He does not know. He does not have any idea. So, surprise, surprise to the long-suffering ratepayers of Stirling, employee costs are up $8.5 million. Forty-five per cent of the increase in the costs of the City of Stirling is employee costs. Maybe it has got too many staff, and maybe it pays them too much! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. He does not know. He does not have any idea. So, surprise, surprise to the long-suffering ratepayers of Stirling, employee costs are up $8.5 million. Forty-five per cent of the increase in the costs of the City of Stirling is employee costs. Maybe it has got too many staff, and maybe it pays them too much! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. He does not know. He does not have any idea. So, surprise, surprise to the long-suffering ratepayers of Stirling, employee costs are up $8.5 million. Forty-five per cent of the increase in the costs of the City of Stirling is employee costs. Maybe it has got too many staff, and maybe it pays them too much! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Warnbro should have done some homework. He should have thought before he opened his mouth. I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
I have said a number of times that the increases in electricity and water charges were large increases. But does it excuse the City of Stirling and some other councils that have tried to imply the same? No, it does not. So, next time I visit the City of Stirling, I will be asking it for an explanation for why, as a local government, operating under the Local Government Act, it sends out what appears to me to be deliberately misleading information. Not good enough, City of Stirling, not good enough; and the City of Stirling ratepayers are not happy.
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.