Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My seat is totally contained within one local government authority: the City of Stirling. Stirling’s neighbouring local government authority, the Town of Vincent, has put forward a proposal to the local government advisory board—which is the state government body that advises it on local council boundaries—to incorporate areas that are an integral part of the City of Stirling. I am totally against this ill-conceived land grab, and I am greatly concerned that it will have negative consequences for my constituents.

I am concerned for two reasons: firstly, for the small number of electors that I represent within the affected areas and, secondly, for the vast bulk of the people who reside within the City of Stirling, who still have a legitimate voice in this debate even though they are not directly involved in this land grab. The people affected, in all likelihood, will end up paying higher rates for a lower level of services than they would expect under the City of Stirling. These families that I represent in the suburb of Coolbinia will be transferred to a local authority that does not enjoy the obvious economies of scale that they currently have within the City of Stirling. The Town of Vincent, even if this land grab is successful, is below the optimum size for the economic provision of services, and it has admitted as much. It also has a very questionable management record.

It is worth mentioning that the City of Stirling, under the leadership by the current mayor, Terry Tyzack, of a hardworking, dedicated team, is in a very strong economic position. The same cannot be said for the Town of Vincent. I recently asked the Mayor of Vincent, Councillor Nick Catania, to answer this question: ‘Why continue to waste Western Australian taxpayers’ money on board deliberations to investigate a proposal that goes against the wishes of local residents and will push unnecessary costs onto my constituents?’ He wrote back effectively saying that I should stick to my federal constituency matters and leave local government to its own processes. This pretty much accords with his standard operating procedure and that of the CEO of the Town of Vincent, a John Giorgi, when people question the merits of their land grab. Their only response is to attack anyone who dares question them and to unfairly attack the record of the City of Stirling. It is clear from this that they are completely and utterly unable to provide a positive case to support their proposal.

I would like to say this to the mayor: it is my responsibility to ensure the economic security of the families in my electorate so they can plan for the future, and it is my responsibility to listen to their concerns and act on them. It is my job to support my local community, and I will not ignore their concerns against this ill-conceived plan of the Town of Vincent. I have looked very closely at the submission provided by Vincent, and there appears to be no tangible benefit that justifies the $1 million price tag of making this change. That is an extraordinarily large bill that will most certainly be pushed onto ratepayers in the Town of Vincent, including those families that might be removed from the City of Stirling.

The views of the residents of the City of Stirling outside of the affected areas also deserve to be heard, because, if they lose a substantial part of the existing council, that will obviously put upward pressure on their rates also. The loss of this significant area is ultimately going to mean that the City of Stirling will need to make a decision to either up rates or sack part of its workforce, something that I certainly do not want to see. I know that people in my electorate feel passionately about this issue because they have contacted me about it and I have been to a public meeting that the local government authority has had, where the overwhelming number of residents were opposed to making this change.

I do not believe that the Town of Vincent has any option but to withdraw this ill-conceived proposal and find an alternative solution to its current lack of viability as a local authority. It might be more sensible for Vincent to seek to be incorporated into one of its neighbouring councils rather than limp along in its current state. It is certainly clear that there is no point in continuing to pursue its current plan against the interests of the people it purports to represent and against the interests of my constituents in the City of Stirling.