CITY OF KALGOORLIE-BOULDER

[2017] WASAT 56

CITY OF KALGOORLIE-BOULDER [2017] WASAT 56

Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2017] WASAT 56
Act:	LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995 (WA)
Case No:	DR:83/2017	Heard:	DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS
Coram:	MS H LESLIE (MEMBER)	Delivered:	5/04/17
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Rates raised by applicant for financial year 2016/2017 for UV Mining Operations differential general rate and UV Exploration/Prospecting differential generate rate are quashed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	CITY OF KALGOORLIE-BOULDER
Catchwords:	Rates minimum payment ­ Ministerial approval ­ Quashing of rate
Legislation:	Local Government Act 1995 (WA), s 6.33, s 6.33(3), s 6.82(1), s 6.82(3)
Case References:	Nil
Orders	1. The rates struck by the applicant on 1 August 2016 for the financial year 2016/2017 for the UV Mining Operations differential general rate and UV Exploration/Prospecting differential general rate (the relevant rates) are quashed.
Summary	The applicant had, in error, struck a rate without ministerial approval in circumstances where, under the Local Government Act 1995 (WA), ministerial approval was required.  The rate was found to be unlawful and was quashed by the Tribunal.

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995 (WA) CITATION : CITY OF KALGOORLIE-BOULDER [2017] WASAT 56 MEMBER : MS H LESLIE (MEMBER) HEARD : DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS DELIVERED : 5 APRIL 2017 FILE NO/S : DR 83 of 2017 MATTER : CITY OF KALGOORLIE-BOULDER

Applicant

Catchwords:

Rates minimum payment ­ Ministerial approval ­ Quashing of rate

Legislation:

Local Government Act 1995 (WA), s 6.33, s 6.33(3), s 6.82(1), s 6.82(3)

Result:

Rates raised by applicant for financial year 2016/2017 for UV Mining Operations differential general rate and UV Exploration/Prospecting differential generate rate are quashed

Summary of Tribunal's decision:

The applicant had, in error, struck a rate without ministerial approval in circumstances where, under the Local Government Act 1995 (WA), ministerial approval was required. The rate was found to be unlawful and was quashed by the Tribunal.

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : N/A

Solicitors:

Applicant : N/A

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Application

1 The City of Kalgoorlie­Boulder (applicant) has applied under s 6.82(1) of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) (LG Act) for an order that rates struck by the applicant on 1 August 2016 for the financial year 2016/2017 for the UV Mining Operations differential general rate and UV Exploration/Prospecting differential general rate be quashed.

Jurisdiction

2 Under s 6.82(1) of the LG Act, where there is a question of general interest as to whether a rate or service charge was imposed in accordance with the LG Act, the local government or any person may refer the question to the Tribunal to have it resolved.

3 Under s 6.82(3) of the LG Act, the Tribunal may make an order quashing a rate or service charge when, in its opinion, it has been improperly made or imposed.

The issue

4 Section 6.33 of the LG Act relevantly provides as follows:

(1) A local government may impose differential general rates according to any, or a combination, of the following characteristics ­

(a) the purpose for which the land is zoned, whether or not under a local planning scheme or improvement scheme in force under the Planning and Development Act 2005; or

(b) a purpose for which the land is held or used as determined by the local government; or

(c) whether or not the land is vacant land; or

(d) any other characteristic or combination of characteristics prescribed.


(2) Regulations may ­

(a) specify the characteristics under subsection (1) which a local government is to use; or

(b) limit the characteristics under subsection (1) which a local government is permitted to use.


(3) In imposing a differential general rate a local government is not to, without the approval of the Minister, impose a differential general rate which is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed by it.

5 Rates for the two categories the subject of this matter were initially approved by the Minister for Local Government on 27 July 2016 at a rate in the dollar of 18.1418 cents and 19.00087 cents respectively (the approved rates) but were subsequently (due to a revaluation of land to the subject of the rates) struck by the applicant on 1 August 2016 in the adjusted amounts of 17.6821 cents in the dollar and 18.6157 cents in the dollar respectively (the relevant rates).

6 It is accepted that the relevant rates are differential general rates more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed by the applicant which require approval of the Minister under s 6.33(3).

7 It is accepted that the applicant did not obtain approval from the relevant Minister as required prior to the striking of the rate as adjusted.

Conclusion

8 Although it is accepted that the relevant rates ultimately imposed by the applicant are lower than the approved rates, it is nonetheless a requirement of the LG Act that the actual rate struck by the applicant has ministerial approval. No such approval was sought by the applicant for the relevant rates. In the Tribunal's view, therefore, the relevant rates are unlawful as they were struck in breach of s 6.33(3).

9 Such a question qualifies as a 'question of general interest as to whether a rate … [has been] imposed in accordance with the [LG Act]' and is a matter capable of reference to the Tribunal under s 6.82(1) of the LG Act.

10 Accordingly, in the view of the Tribunal, the request made by the applicant for the quashing of the rate raised should be acceded to.

Order

Accordingly, the following order is made under s 6.82(3) of the LG Act:

1. The rates struck by the applicant on 1 August 2016 for the financial year 2016/2017 for the UV Mining Operations differential general rate and UV Exploration/Prospecting differential general rate (the relevant rates) are quashed.

I certify that this and the preceding [10] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.

___________________________________

MS H LESLIE, MEMBER