SHIRE OF TOODYAY

[2022] WASAT 113

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

ACT: LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995 (WA)

CITATION:   SHIRE OF TOODYAY [2022] WASAT 113

MEMBER:   DR S WILLEY, SENIOR MEMBER

HEARD:   7 DECEMBER 2022

DELIVERED          :   21 DECEMBER 2022

FILE NO/S:   DR 170 of 2022

BETWEEN:   SHIRE OF TOODYAY

Applicant

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, SPORT AND CULTURAL INDUSTRIES

Intervenor

Catchwords:

Local government - Rates - Differential rates - General rates - Ministerial approval - Annual budget - Referral of general question - Rates not imposed in accordance with Act - Quashing of rates

Legislation:

Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 (WA), reg 23, reg 52A, Pt 5
Local Government Act 1995 (WA), s 5.56, s 6.1, s 6.2, s 6.2(1), s 6.2(2), s 6.2(3), s 6.26, s 6.28, s 6.82(2), s 6.3, s 6.32, s 6.32(1), s 6.32(1)(a), s 6.32(1)(b), s 6.32(1)(c), s 6.32(2), s 6.32(2)(b), s 6.32(3), s 6.32(3)(b), s 6.33, s 6.33(3), s 6.34, s 6.82, s 6.82(1), s 6.82(3), Pt 6, Div 1, Div 2, Div 6
Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 27(2), s 37(3)

Result:

Rates quashed

Category:    A

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	T Houweling
Intervenor	:	J Misso

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Cornerstone Legal
Intervenor	:	State Solicitor's Office

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

City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder [2017] WASAT 56

Citygate Properties Pty Ltd and City of Bunbury [2009] WASAT 142

Forrest & Forrest Pty Ltd v Wilson [2017] HCA 30; (2017) 262 CLR 510

Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355

Shire of Toodyay [2016] WASAT 141

Shire of Yalgoo [2016] WASAT 136

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

1. The Shire of Toodyay (Shire or Applicant) has referred a general question as to whether its rates for the 2022-23 financial year have been imposed in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) (LG Act).  Section 6.82 of the LG Act allows such questions to be referred to the Tribunal.

2. At the heart of the matter is the Council of the Shire of Toodyay's decision, in May 2022, to introduce a Mining Tenement Differential Rate (MTDR) (the 'UV Mining' rate) to recognise the impacts of mining exploration activities on the Shire's assets.

3. The Director General of the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries has intervened (Intervenor) in this matter pursuant to s 37(3) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act). 

4. Both the Applicant and the Intervenor are of the view that the decision to impose the MTDR was not in accordance with the LG Act.  However, the Applicant submits that the Tribunal should just dismiss the application as the resolution to impose the MTDR was of no legal effect.  In the alternative, the Applicant submits that only the decision to impose the differential rate on land identified as 'UV Mining' should be quashed pursuant to s 6.82 of the LG Act.

5. The Intervenor submits that the Tribunal should quash the general rate for land rated on the basis of unimproved value, rather than just the differential rate for UV Mining.

6. For the following reasons, the Intervenor's submissions should be accepted.  The UV Mining general differential rate was not imposed in accordance with the LG Act and will be quashed.  The consequence of that is that, perforce of s 6.32(3)(b) of the LG Act, the Shire must now adopt a new general rate for the purposes of its annual budget. 

Background

1. The following facts are agreed between the parties:

   1)On 15 July 2022, the Applicant submitted an application to the Minister for Local Government (Minister) under s 6.33(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) (LG Act) for approval to impose a differential rate on land categorised as 'UV Mining' for the 2022­23 financial year (application).

   2)At a Special Council Meeting (SCM) held on 10 August 2022, the Council of the Applicant considered the following recommendation (Recommendation 1) from the administration of the Shire:

   'The Shire of Toodyay raises annual rates on a differential basis.  This means that Council has the option to set more than one rate in the dollar based on property class, rather than having a uniform rate for all property classes.  Differential rates allow different classes of property to be taxed differently.

   In accordance with legislative requirements, Officers sought Council's approval to advertise differential rates at a SCM held on 8 June 2022.  This included the introduction of a mining differential rate to meet the cost incurred by mining activities taking place within the Shire.  The rates were advertised for a period of 21 days inviting submissions from the community.

   At an SCM held on 13 July 2022, Council considered the submissions received and authorised the CEO to seek the approval of the Minister to impose a differential general rate which is more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed by it, in accordance with s 6.33(3) of the Act.  Officers await the outcome of the decision.

   Officers have included the revenue to be raised from the proposed differential rate.  Should the Minister refuse approval, a report will be brought back to Council for a budget amendment.

   The proposed differential rates are contained in the table below.'

General Rate - Gross Rental Value (GRV)

Rate in

$

(cents)

GRV Residential

0.138729

GRV Commercial

0.147014

GRV Industrial

0.128650

GRV Rural

0.128292

GRV Rural Residential

0.121456

General Rate - Unimproved Value (UV)

UV General
UV Rural

0.014170
0.008298

UV Mining

0.885755

3)At the SCM on 10 August 2022, the Council carried a motion to impose the above differential rates for the 2022-23 financial year.

4)As at 10 August 2022, the Minister had not approved the Shire's application under s 6.33(3) of the LG Act.

5)As at 31 August 2022, the date by which s 6.2(1) of the LG Act requires local governments to adopt their annual budget (unless the Minister allows an extension of time), the Minister had not approved the Shire's application.

6)On 5 September 2022, the delegate of the Minister rejected the Shire's application.  

1. I have also received a witness statement from Mr Maurice Werder,[1] an officer at the Shire.  Mr Werder explains that the basis of the MTDR was to allow the Applicant to address revenue requirements, to maintain additional infrastructure and road expenditure generation by mining exploration being conducted within the Shire's municipal area.

   [1] Exhibit 1.

2. Mr Werder's statement also explains the process by which the Shire prepared its budget for the 2022/23 financial year.

Statutory scheme

1. Part 6 of the LG Act deals with the financial management of local governments.

2. Section 6.1 includes the following defined terms:

   differential general rate means the rate imposed under section 6.33;

   general rate means a rate imposed in accordance with section 6.32(1)(a).

3. Division 2 of Pt 6 relates to the annual budget.  Section 6.2(1) requires a local government to prepare an annual budget for its municipal fund each financial year.  In preparing that annual budget, the local government is to have regard to the contents of the plan for the future made pursuant to s 5.56 of the LG Act.  The local government is to prepare a detailed estimate for the current year of:

   (a)the expenditure by the local government; and

   (b)the revenue and income, independent of general rates, of the local government; and

   (c)the amount required to make up the deficiency, if any, shown by comparing the estimated expenditure with the estimated revenue and income. 

4. All expenditure, revenue and income of the local government is to be taken into account unless otherwise prescribed.[2]

   [2] LG Act, s 6.2(3).

5. Section 6.3 provides for a budget to be made 'in other circumstances', including where it is required to do so in consequence of the quashing of either a 'general valuation or a 'rate or service charge', by a court or by the Tribunal.

6. Division 6 of Pt 6 of the LG Act deals with rates and service charges. 

7. Section 6.26 of the LG Act explains what is 'rateable land'.  Pursuant to s 6.28 the Minister determines the method of valuation of land to be used by a local government as the basis for a rate.  The Minister's determination must be published in the Government Gazette.  In making that determination, the Minister is to have regard to the general principle that the basis for a rate on any land is to be:

   (a)where the land is used predominantly for rural purposes, the unimproved value of the land; and

   (b)where the land is used predominantly for non-rural purposes, the gross rental value of the land.

8. Subdivision 2 of Div 6 of the LG Act is directed to 'rates and service charges'. 

9. Section 6.32(1) provides that when adopting the annual budget, a local government, in order to make up a budget deficiency, is to impose a general rate on rateable land within its district, such rate may be imposed 'uniformly' or 'differentially'.  Section 6.32(1)(b) recognises other forms of rates including a 'specified area rate' and a 'minimum payment'.  Section 6.32(1)(c) provides for the imposition of a 'service charge'.

10. Section 6.32(2) of the LG Act requires the local government, in imposing a rate, to:

    (a)set a rate which is expressed as a rate in the dollar of the gross rental value of rateable land within its district to be rated on gross rental value; and

    (b)set a rate which is expressed as a rate in the dollar of the unimproved value of rateable land within its district to be rated on unimproved value.

11. Section 6.32(3) then provides that a local government:

    (a)may, at any time after the imposition of rates in a financial year, in an emergency, impose (by absolute majority) a supplementary general rate or specified area rate for the unexpired portion of the current financial year; and

    (b)is to, after a court or the Tribunal has quashed a general valuation, rate or service charge, impose (by absolute majority) a new general rate, specified area rate or service charge.

12. Section 6.33 is headed 'Differential general rates'.

13. Section 6.33(1) provides that 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 planning scheme as defined in the Planning and Development Act 2005 (PD Act); 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.[3]

    [3] Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 (WA), reg 52A.

14. Section 6.33(3) then provides:

    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.

15. Local governments cannot rely on rates to raise unlimited funds.  Section 6.34 of the LG Act provides that, unless otherwise approved by the Minister, the amount shown in the annual budget as being the amount it is estimated will be yielded by the general rate is not to be:

    (a)more than 110% of the amount of the budget deficiency; or

    (b)less than 90% of the amount of the budget deficiency.

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

17. The referral of questions under s 6.82 of the LG Act arises in the Tribunal's review jurisdiction.[4]  It follows that my task is therefore to make the correct and preferable decision on the review.[5]

    [4] Citygate Properties Pty Ltd and City of Bunbury [2009] WASAT 142 [35]-[36].

    [5] SAT Act, s 27(2).

18. Section 6.82(3) of the LG Act then provides that the Tribunal, in dealing with a matter referred to it, 'may make an order quashing a rate or service charge which in its opinion has been improperly made or imposed'.

The UV Mining Rate was not imposed in accordance with the LG Act

1. As is clear from the agreed facts, the differential general rate imposed by the Shire on land rated as 'UV Mining' for the 2022-23 financial year was 0.885755 cents in the dollar.

2. The lowest differential rate based upon unimproved value imposed by the Shire for the 2022-23 financial year was 0.008298 cents in the dollar.

3. It follows that the differential general rate imposed by the Shire on land rated as UV Mining for the 2022-23 financial year did not comply with s 6.33(3) of the LG Act because it was more than twice the lowest differential general rate imposed by the Shire, but the Shire had not obtained, and in fact did not obtain, the Minister's approval to impose the rate.  The differential rate of 0.885755 is, in fact, more than 106 times greater than the lowest differential rate of 0.008298.

Intervenor's submissions

1. The Intervenor submits that the correct and preferable decision is for the Tribunal to quash the general rate for land rates on the basis of unimproved value (which is generally rural land), rather than just the differential rate for UV Mining for the following reasons.

2. Firstly, under s 6.32(2) of the LG Act, the general rate must be imposed separately for rateable land valued on its unimproved value (UV land) and rateable land valued on its gross rental value (GRV land).  Therefore, there are two general rates, one for GRV land and one for UV land.

3. Secondly, s 6.32(1)(a) of the LG Act speaks of imposing 'a general rate' and s 6.32(2)(b) and s 6.82 refer to quashing 'a rate' rather than a particular differential rate.

4. Thirdly, if only a particular differential rating category (such as UV Mining) is quashed, the Shire may not have the flexibility to address the issue in a way that is in the best interests of the local government, because a local government can only change a rate in limited circumstances, such as where a Court or the Tribunal has quashed a general rate:  s 6.32(3) of the LG Act.

5. Fourthly, s 6.3 of the LG Act refers to the quashing of a 'rate or service charge'.  That same phrase is relevantly used in s 6.82(3).  Section 6.2 confers on local governments the power to prepare and adopt a budget.  Section 6.3 provides for the making of a budget in other circumstances 'in a form and manner similar to the annual budget', and therefore is to include detailed information relating to the rates and service charges that will apply.

6. The fact that s 6.3 of the LG Act confers power for the preparation and adoption of a new budget following the quashing of a rate by the Tribunal suggests a legislative intention that the local government would have the ability and flexibility to make any adjustments to its budget 'as are necessary to meet the case', rather than being limited to removing or adjusting a particular differential rate.

7. Fifthly, while s 6.3 requires a local government to prepare and adopt a new budget following the quashing of a rate, the power to impose 'a new general rate, specified area rate or service charge' after a court or the Tribunal has quashed a 'general valuation, rate or service charge' is found in s 6.32(3)(b) of the LG Act.

8. The fact that a local government is required by s 6.32(3)(b) to impose 'a new general rate, specified area rate or service charge' supports the position that an order made by the Tribunal under s 6.82(3) should quash a general rate, as opposed to a particular differential general rate, because a local government could not impose a new 'general rate' under s 6.32(3)(b) unless the previous general rate had first been quashed by the Tribunal. 

Applicant's submissions

1. The Applicant agrees that the UV Mining was not imposed in accordance with the LG Act.  However, it does not agree with the orders put forward by the Intervenor.

2. The Applicant says the preferred course is for the Tribunal to dismiss the application under the SAT Act. The basis for its submission is that there is nothing needed to quash the imposition of the UV Mining rate because it never had legal effect. This is because the differential rate of the nature sought required, but did not receive, the Minister's approval. The differential UV Mining rate was therefore, as a matter of law, never imposed. Accordingly, there is no determination with legal effect that can be the subject of an order to quash.

3. In the alternative, the Applicant submits that the Tribunal should make orders quashing only the UV Mining rate.  It says, in effect, that the UV Mining rate is severable from the other general rates imposed on the basis of unimproved value. 

4. The Applicant focuses on the text of s 6.82 of the LG Act and the use of the word 'rate' (as opposed to 'rates').  It submits the ordinary term 'rate' relates to a general rate imposed on a particular basis by s 6.32(1) of the LG Act and is not, as is contended by the Intervenor, a reference to a plurality of rates under a designation in 6.32(2) of the LG Act.

5. The Applicant further submits that s 6.3 provides flexibility for a local government to make any adjustments to its budget making process 'as are necessary' in response to a rate being quashed.

6. The Applicant accepts that it is arguable that 'quashing "a rate" requires the local government to amend its rates schedule by replacing not only the impugned differential rate but all UV rates and to adopt a new budget'.  However, the Applicant submits that such a construction requires reading words into the provision and is not made clear by the language used. 

7. The Applicant says that the Tribunal has, in the past, in decisions such as Shire of Toodyay,[6] treated rates within the UV category as distinct for the purposes of making orders under s 6.82 of the LG Act.  That is to say, the lawfulness of each rate was determined by the Tribunal independently on separate grounds.

Disposition

An order under s 6.82(3) is appropriate

[6] Shire of Toodyay [2016] WASAT 141 [7].

1. For the following two reasons, I agree with the Intervenor that an order quashing the differential general rate that was adopted by the Shire is appropriate.  

2. First, as is agreed between the parties, the UV Mining rate was imposed in a manner contrary to the requirements of s 6.33(3) of the LG Act.  The differential general rate was therefore, I find, not imposed in accordance with the LG Act.  In the circumstances, resolving the matter via an order made pursuant to s 6.82 of the LG Act seems to be the appropriate course provided by the statute. 

3. Second, I do not agree with the Applicant that there is no need for an order and that I should instead simply dismiss the application. 

4. What has been referred to the Tribunal by the Shire 'is a question of general interest' as to whether, relevantly the differential general rate for UV Mining was imposed in accordance with the LG Act. 

5. In all instances, where a rate is found not to have been imposed in accordance with the LG Act it may be argued that there is in fact no need for an order under s 6.82(3) of the LG Act quashing the rate.  That is because, if rates were imposed in a manner that is ultra vires, it may be argued that the decision to impose the rate is of no legal consequence and thus no declaration is required from the Tribunal confirming that to be so. 

6. I do not accept that, having found that the rate was not imposed in accordance with the LG Act, that I should then dismiss the application, rather than make an order quashing the rate, is consistent with the architecture of the LG Act and the statutory scheme.  Parliament has given the Tribunal the function of making a determination as to whether a rate has been imposed in accordance with the LG Act. 

1. By its express terms, s 6.82 is to operate in instances where there is a general question as to whether a rate has been imposed in a manner that accords with the requirements of the LG Act.  No doubt a provision of this nature recognises the fact that there are currently 137 local governments in Western Australia, each of which must impose rates in order to meet a budget deficiency.  It is trite that general questions as to whether rates adopted by local governments accord with the requirements of the LG Act will arise from time to time. 

2. This is such a case.  Having found that there is a general question, I am not simply inclined to dismiss the application on the basis of a submission that the rate never took effect and has not been levied.  In my view, an order in the terms of s 6.82(3) is warranted.

3. Furthermore, as submitted by Mr Misso, counsel for the Intervenor, as a matter of administrative law, an act done in breach of a condition regulating the exercise of a statutory power (in this case, the power to impose a differential general rate) is not necessarily invalid and of no effect.  Whether such an act is invalid and of no effect 'depends upon whether there can be discerned a legislative purpose to invalidate any act that fails to comply with the condition'.[7] 

   [7] Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355, 388­389 [91] (McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ).

4. That would then involve an inquiry as to whether the statutory purpose of the duty (relevantly, to seek Ministerial consent pursuant to s 6.33(3) of the LG Act), when considered on context, would be advanced by holding an exercise of decision-making power affected by the breach of duty to be invalid.[8]

   [8] Forrest & Forrest Pty Ltd v Wilson [2017] HCA 30; (2017) 262 CLR 510, 534 [83] (Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gagler and Keane JJ).

5. The Shire adopted the budget on 10 August 2022.  It remains the adopted budget.  To not make an order under s 6.82(3) of the LG Act does not bring finality to this situation and leaves open the question of the validity of the adopted differential general rate for UV Mining. 

6. Coming back to the evident purpose of s 6.82, an order quashing the imposition of the rate not only serves the purpose of answering the question posed by the Applicant, but also alerts and informs other local governments and stakeholders which may have similar rating questions.

7. It is also the case that in order to be empowered to set a new general rate under s 6.32(3)(b), and to prepare a new budget under s 6.3, an order quashing a rate under s 6.82(3) must first be made.   

8. I will make an order pursuant to s 6.82(3) of the LG Act.

What is the appropriate terms for an order under s 6.82(3)

1. Having determined that an order pursuant to s 6.82(3) of the LG Act is appropriate, I turn now to the appropriate terms of the order.

2. There is a contest between the parties as to whether I may only quash the UV Mining differential general rate or whether I am required to quash the general differential rate (comprising in this instance, the 'UV General', 'UV Rural' and 'UV Mining' differential rates).

3. The answer to this is a question of statutory construction.  It is not straightforward.  There are some textual indications on each side of the debate. 

4. In my exchanges with counsel, it is clear that this question has not before been directly addressed by the Tribunal or in Western Australia.  My own searches have yielded no case authorities which may assist.  The Tribunal has made many orders quashing particular differential rates[9] and there are others where the Tribunal has quashed the general differential rate.[10]  This no doubt reflects the fact that proceedings of this nature are rarely contested and argued.

   [9] Shire of Toodyay [2016] WASAT 141; City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder [2017] WASAT 56.

   [10] Minister for Local Government and Shire of Mingenew [2013] DR 479; Shire of Yalgoo [2016] WASAT 136; Shire of Carnarvon and No Respondent [2020] DR 72.

5. I turn to set out the features of the statutory scheme that arise for consideration.

6. A local government is required to, perforce of 6.32(1) of the LG Act, impose a rate, being a general rate, either uniformly or differentially.  The definition of general rate includes a differential general rate.[11] 

   [11] Regulation 23 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 (WA) addresses the rate information required in the annual budget and includes references to both general rates and differential general rates.

7. Section 6.33 is directed to differential general rates.  It is plain from that section that there can be more than one differential general rate adopted.  Section 6.33 controls the relationship between each differential general rate that has been adopted by requiring that no general differential rate can be more than twice that of the lowest differential generate rate, unless the Minister's approval has been obtained.

8. Turning to s 6.82, this provision empowers the Tribunal to consider a question of general interest as to whether a rate was imposed in accordance with the LG Act.  The Tribunal may 'make an order quashing a rate or service charge' that was improperly made.

9. Once an order under s 6.82 is made, s 6.32(3)(b) requires the local government to, relevantly, impose a new 'general rate'. 

10. It is important to note that the rate setting exercise does not operate in vacuum.  It arises in the context of the setting of the annual budget and rates are imposed to make up a budget deficiency.  The revenue that can be leveraged from rates is limited and must, pursuant to, s 6.34 of the LG Act be such that rates yield between no more than 110%, and no less than 90%, of the budget deficiency.

11. Intuitively, one may assume that if one differential general rate is to be quashed, then the local government may need to adjust all the differential general rates that were adopted in order to ensure the budget deficiency can be met.  It may not be as simple as reimposing only one particular differential general rate in a manner that accords with s 6.33(3). 

12. However, that is not what is pressed for here by the Shire.  The Shire submits I should only quash the UV Mining differential general rate. 

13. The Intervenor's submissions have much force.  Those submissions are to the effect that if Parliament intended that the Tribunal may quash a particular 'differential general rate', rather than a 'general rate', then the term 'differential general rate' rather than a 'general rate' would have been used in s 6.32(3)(b).  That is to say, what s 6.32(3)(b) requires is for a new general rate, for the purposes of s 6.32(1)(a) of the LG Act, to be imposed.

14. Against that, it may be said that s 6.33 recognises that there may be, in fact must be, more than one differential general rate imposed and that s 6.82(3) uses the term that a 'rate' may be quashed.  That is to say, the term 'general rate' is not used in s 6.82(3).

15. While that fact does support the Applicant's argument at some level, it is also the case that the use of the generic term 'rate' in s 6.82(3) reflects the fact that there may be any number of rates imposed by a local government including a general rate (either uniform or differential), as well as specified area rate or minimum payment, that may be quashed. 

16. The primary difference between the parties in this matter seems to be whether, following an order quashing a 'rate' (no matter what kind of rate) is made under s 6.82(3), what then follows?

17. Section 6.3 requires a local government to prepare a new budget in consequence of the quashing of a rate by the Tribunal.  The new budget is to be in a form and manner similar to the annual budget, with such modifications as are necessary.

18. It seems to me that s 6.3, read together with s 6.32(3)(b), and taking account of the statutory scheme in general, means that when a rate is quashed, the consequence is that a new general rate is required to be imposed and a new budget prepared.

19. That makes sense to me, given that the rates set out in the annual budget come into existence uno flato with the objective of, together, meeting the budget deficit.  To me, it is axiomatic that the quashing of one rate that was imposed may, indeed possibly even must, have consequential effects on the other rates adopted and imposed.  That is to say, the rates that are adopted to meet the needs of the annual budget, stand or fall together.

20. Following the quashing of 'a rate' under s 6.82(3), s 6.32(3)(b) requires a local government to impose 'a new general rate'.  The reference to 'general rate' and not a 'differential general rate' refers to the imposition of general rates under s 6.32, not s 6.33 which relates to the setting of differential general rates. 

21. For these reasons, the Intervenor's case should, on balance, be accepted as the preferred construction. 

22. The parties each submitted draft orders depending on the conclusion I ultimately reached.

23. For the reasons set out above, the order sought by the Intervenor will be made.

    Orders

    The Tribunal orders:

    1.The general rate imposed by the Shire of Toodyay upon rateable land within its district to be rated on unimproved value for the 2022-23 financial year pursuant to 6.32(1) of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) is quashed pursuant to s 6.82 of that Act.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.

DR S WILLEY, SENIOR MEMBER

21 DECEMBER 2022