Queens Gardens Car Park (Inner City School) Act 2024

The Act introduces several core concepts that define its operation. Chevron Agreement is the agreement approved by the 1960 Act, which is now terminated. Queens Gardens car park land is defined by reference to specific certificates of title listed in Schedule 1 and a portion of land on Certificate of Title Volume 925 Folio 2 (section 4). Hale Street north land is the land depicted on the plan in Schedule 2 as lot 101 , a portion of Hale Street that is closed and ceases to be a road or public right of way under section 7. Transferred land comprises both the Hale Street north land and the Queens Gardens car park land, the freehold of which is transferred to the Minister for Education (sections 7(2) and 8(1)). Interest in land is defined under section 151(1) of the Land Administration Act 1997 and includes registered and unregistered interests. All such interests in both parcels are extinguished on commencement day (sections 7(3) and 8(2)). Development lot is the single lot (lot 100 on Schedule 3) that the Registrar of Titles must create from the transferred land (section 9). The Act treats the land assembly as a single transaction that overrides ordinary planning and registration requirements: section 11 explicitly bypasses the need for planning approvals under the Planning and Development Act 2005 (such as the Western Australian Planning Commission’s consent to amalgamate lots or to endorse plans). Relevant indemnity is clause 18 of the Chevron Agreement, which continues for 20 years despite the termination of the underlying agreement, preserving the City of Perth’s indemnity liability to the State but allowing a court to determine liability if disputed (section 6). State Government entity is defined broadly in section 13(5) to include the State, any Minister, the Minister for Education, the Registrar of Titles, public sector bodies, employees, agents, and contractors , but expressly excludes a local government (section 13(6)). This exclusion means the local government (the City of Perth) can still potentially bring claims, but the Act extinguishes all State Government entity liability, which effectively removes the principal defendant. Central Perth Redevelopment Scheme under the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority Act 2011 applies to the development lot, but the Act overrides the Scheme to allow a government school use (section 16(2)). If the Scheme or area ceases to exist, fallback planning instruments under the Planning and Development Act apply. These concepts together form a mechanism to extinguish pre-existing property rights, transfer land to the State without negotiation or compensation, and bypass normal planning processes , all in the service of building a government school. The payment to the City of Perth is the only explicit compensation, for lost car park revenue, and it is for a fixed amount rather than determined by valuation or negotiation.

The Act directly affects several classes of persons and entities. The City of Perth loses its car park land (the Queens Gardens car park land) and the Hale Street north land that it previously held or controlled, suffers extinguishments of any interests in those parcels, and loses future car park revenue. It receives a fixed payment of $4,217,000 as compensation for that lost revenue (section 14), but not for any other loss (e.g., loss of development potential, business income from the car park, or loss of the land asset itself). The City also retains potential indemnity liability to the State under the relevant indemnity (clause 18 of the Chevron Agreement) for the next 20 years, but the Act extinguished all liability of State Government entities to the City or anyone else. Other interest holders whose interests were registered or unregistered in the Queens Gardens car park land or Hale Street north land , such as leaseholders, licensees, easement holders, or mortgagees , have their interests extinguished without compensation (sections 7(3) and 8(2)). Section 13 extinguishes any claim for compensation against State Government entities, so these interest holders have no statutory right to sue for the loss. The Act does not identify who these interest holders might be, but the effect is to wipe out any private or public rights short of freehold. The Minister for Education becomes the new freehold owner of the transferred land (sections 7(2) and 8(1)), and is obligated to ensure facilities for a government school are constructed on the development lot (section 15). This imposes a mandatory spending obligation on the State, though the Act does not prescribe funding sources other than the appropriation of the car park compensation. The Registrar of Titles is required to create the development lot (section 9) and to record the transfers and extinguishments in the Land Titles Register, overriding normal procedural requirements (section 10) and planning approvals (section 11). State Government entities as defined in section 13(5) are shielded from all liability arising from the termination, repeal, transfer, and extinguishment provisions of the Act. The general public , notably parents, students, and residents of the inner city , will be affected by the presence of a new government school on the site. The Act does not specify the school’s size, type, or opening date; it simply imposes an obligation to “ensure that facilities for a government school are constructed” (section 15). Holders of rights under the Chevron Agreement (which may have included third parties such as Hilton or Chevron entities) lose those rights when the agreement is terminated and the enabling Act repealed , except the indemnity clause which survives. The Act does not name any current parties to the Chevron Agreement, but it acknowledges the existence of rights that are now extinguished. Taxation and duty authorities cannot impose stamp duty, land tax, GST, or other charges on the land transfers or the creation of the development lot (section 12), which means the general revenue being forgone is a cost borne by the State budget. The Western Australian Planning Commission and other planning authorities lose control over the lot amalgamation and transfer process (section 11). Finally, private enterprises that may have had interests in the land , such as car park operators, lessees of retail kiosks, or parking management companies , are dispossessed without statutory compensation, raising questions of contract rights and property rights.

The Act imposes specific duties and confers limited rights, with no reciprocal private rights of action. Duty on the Minister for Education: to “ensure that facilities for a government school are constructed on the development lot” (section 15). This is a mandatory obligation, but no time frame is specified, nor any penalty for delay. The phrase “ensure” is strong, but the Act does not provide enforcement mechanisms for private parties. Duty on the Registrar of Titles: to create a certificate of title for the development lot (section 9), do all things necessary to record the transfers and extinguishments (section 10), and to do so without requiring any planning approvals that would otherwise apply (section 11). The Registrar must act “as soon as practicable” to create the certificate , a period that could be months or years. Duty on the State: to pay $4,217,000 to the City of Perth, charged to the Consolidated Account (section 14). This is a one-off payment, not indexed to inflation or recurring. Right of the City of Perth: to receive that payment and to apply to a court to determine liability under the indemnity (section 6(3)). The Act expressly allows a court to determine whether the City has a liability under the relevant indemnity and the amount. This is the only judicial recourse preserved for the City. Right of the State: to enforce the relevant indemnity against the City of Perth for 20 years (section 6(2)). The State can apply to a court for a determination. Extinguished rights: all other interests in the Hale Street north land and Queens Gardens car park land are extinguished (sections 7(3), 8(2)), and all liabilities of State Government entities are extinguished (section 13). No person has a right to compensation for the loss of those interests. No right of appeal: the Act contains no right of appeal against the transfers, extinguishments, or exemptions. Decisions under the Act are not subject to merits review. Rights of the Registrar of Titles: are freed from normal planning requirements (section 11), but this is a duty-facilitation rather than a right for private benefit. Regulation-making power: the Governor may make regulations under section 17, which could impose further duties or create rights, but until such regulations are made, the Act stands alone. The absence of a statutory compensation scheme for interest holders whose rights are extinguished is notable. In the absence of a specific right, interest holders must rely on general law principles such as possible constitutional or administrative law challenges (e.g., under the Australian Constitution s 51(xxxi) if the Commonwealth were involved, or common law principles of statutory construction, but the Act explicitly extinguishes claims against State Government entities and does not provide any alternative remedy).

The Act contains no specific penalty provisions such as fines, imprisonment, or infringement notices for non-compliance. Enforcement mechanisms are limited to the duties placed on public officials and the State. Failure by the Registrar of Titles to create the certificate or record the transfers could potentially be enforced through administrative law remedies (mandamus) or a direction from the Minister, but the Act provides no fast-track or statutory penalty for delay. Failure by the Minister for Education to construct school facilities is a political accountability matter, not a legal one under this Act. The obligation in section 15 is not subject to timeframes or sanctions. Breach of the indemnity: if the City of Perth fails to honour the indemnity for a claim that arises, the State can sue for breach of contract (the surviving clause 18 is treated as continuing). That enforcement is through ordinary civil proceedings, not through this Act. Non-payment of the $4.217 million: the Act appropriates the sum from the Consolidated Account, so the payment is mandatory. If the State fails to pay, the City could presumably sue for debt. The Act does not impose interest for late payment. Regulations: section 17 allows regulations to prescribe matters necessary or convenient for giving effect to the Act. Those regulations could theoretically create penalties for offences, but the Act does not currently contain any. The Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) would allow regulations to impose penalties of up to $2,000 for an offence unless the primary Act provides otherwise. However, no such regulations have been made under this Act as at the compilation date. Enforcement of the liability exclusion: section 13(3) provides that no claim or demand, or action or other proceeding, lies against a State Government entity in respect of the listed matters. This acts as a procedural bar. If a person attempts to bring a claim, the court must dismiss it. The Act does not provide a mechanism for costs consequences beyond normal rules. No private right of action: the Act does not confer any private right to enforce the duties in sections 9, 10, or 15. Environmental laws, planning laws, and other laws that might normally apply are overridden (section 11), so there is no scope for third party enforcement under those regimes. The continued indemnity: the Act preserves the City of Perth’s liability but also allows a court to determine liability and amount (section 6(3)). If the City refuses to pay a determined amount, the State can enforce as a debt. The Act itself does not impose contempt or other penalties for non-compliance with a court order. In summary, the Act relies on the compulsion of statutory duty and the normal processes of law for its enforcement, not on specific penal provisions. The real “penalty” for non-compliance by the State is political, not legal.

The Act overrides or modifies a range of Western Australian statutes and general law principles. Land Administration Act 1997: Parts 9 and 10 (which deal with compulsory acquisition and compensation for resumption of interests in land) are expressly disapplied by section 13(4). This is significant because those Parts normally provide a statutory compensation entitlement when the State acquires or extinguishes interests in land. The Act thereby avoids the usual requirement to pay just terms compensation under that Act. Transfer of Land Act 1893: the Registrar of Titles is to perform functions under Part 3 of this Act in accordance with the Transfer of Land Act, but section 10 requires that the Registrar do all things necessary to record the transfers and extinguishments. Section 11 overrides any written law (including the Transfer of Land Act) that would impose a planning approval or precondition. Planning and Development Act 2005: section 135 (approvals for lot amalgamation), section 146 (endorsement of plans), and section 147(1)(a) (registration of transfers) are explicitly bypassed, as stated in the examples to section 11. More broadly, section 11(2) provides that no planning approval or planning requirement under any written law applies to the performance of the Registrar’s functions under Part 3. Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority Act 2011: the Central Perth Redevelopment Scheme applies to the development lot (section 16(2)), but the Act overrides any provision of the Scheme that would prohibit a government school. If the Scheme or area ceases to exist, fallback planning instruments under the Planning and Development Act 2005 apply. School Education Act 1999: section 55 establishes government schools and section 214(1) creates the Minister for Education as a body corporate. This Act uses those definitions for the school and the Minister. City of Perth Act 2016: the City of Perth is the body corporate continued under that Act, and this Act refers to that entity. Chevron‑Hilton Hotel Agreement Act 1960: is entirely repealed by section 5(2), ending its legal force except for the surviving indemnity. General law: the Act extinguishes all unregistered interests (sections 7(3) and 8(2)). This would override common law rights such as easements by prescription, licences, and possibly equitable interests. Taxation laws: section 12 exempts anything done under Part 3 from any tax, duty, levy, charge or fee under a written law. This likely overrides the Duties Act 2008 (WA) (stamp duty), Land Tax Assessment Act 2002 (WA), and potentially the GST Act insofar as State legislation can override Commonwealth law , but the exemption is from “a written law” which typically means State law only. Commonwealth GST may still apply, but the State cannot exempt itself from Commonwealth tax. The interaction with the Australian Constitution s 51(xxxi) (acquisition of property on just terms) is not addressed in the Act. The Commonwealth Acquisition of Land Act 1989 is not mentioned. Since the land is transferred to a State instrumentality (Minister for Education), the Commonwealth just terms requirement may not apply unless the Commonwealth is involved, but the extinguishment of interests could be characterised as an acquisition for public purposes. The Act does not provide compensation, so a constitutional challenge (outside the State’s legislative power limits) is possible, but not within the Act’s text. Public Sector Management Act 1994: the definition of public sector body is incorporated into the definition of State Government entity in section 13(5)(e). Local government laws: the City of Perth’s lost revenue is partially compensated, but its planning and property powers over the land are lost. The Act does not interact with local planning schemes because the redevelopment scheme overrides them. Overall, the Act creates a carve-out from the normal legal framework, substituting centralised State control for local and private rights.

There is no amendment history to discuss for this Act. The Queens Gardens Car Park (Inner City School) Act 2024 is a new Act that received Royal Assent on 22 October 2024 (Act No. 34 of 2024) and commenced as set out in section 2. The compilation table at the end of the Act shows only the original Act. The Act has not been amended since enactment. The parent Act it repeals , the Chevron‑Hilton Hotel Agreement Act 1960 , had its own history over 64 years, but that is not the subject of this deep dive. The 1960 Act would have been amended at various points, and it approved a specific agreement that governed the car park and related land. By repealing it, the legislature has undone that past legislative settlement. The present Act is self-contained and does not amend any other Act (apart from the repeal). It is silent on savings or transitional provisions for matters that might have been pending under the 1960 Act, except for the continuation of the indemnity. Any future amendments to this Act will be recorded as compilation notes. No amending legislation has been passed as at the date of compilation (the notes show only the original Act). For practitioners, this means the Act should be read as enacted; there are no subsequent amendments to track. However, the regulation-making power in section 17 could result in regulations that effectively modify the operation of the Act without amending the primary legislation. Those regulations will need to be monitored separately.

No litigation history exists for this Act because it was only enacted in October 2024 and has not yet been tested in court. The source text does not reference any cases, and the Act’s compilation includes no court decisions. However, given the Act’s provisions , particularly the extinguishment of interests without compensation, the broad liability exclusion, and the termination of a long-standing agreement , it is foreseeable that litigation may arise. Potential litigants include interest holders whose rights were extinguished (e.g., lessees of car park sites, easement holders, or parties with contractual rights under the Chevron Agreement), the City of Perth (if it disputes the indemnity liability or the adequacy of the $4.217 million payment, though the payment is fixed and cannot be renegotiated under the Act), and possibly third parties such as preservation groups or neighbours challenging the school development under planning laws (but the Act removes planning approval requirements). The Act expressly preserves court jurisdiction to determine indemnity liability (section 6(3)), so those proceedings are anticipated. Other claims could be brought under the Australian Constitution s 51(xxxi) if Commonwealth legislative power is engaged, but that requires a Commonwealth acquisition , the Act only involves the State. The High Court has held that a State may acquire property without just terms unless the acquisition is under Commonwealth law or the State law is inconsistent with a Commonwealth law (see Durham Holdings Pty Ltd v New South Wales (2001) 205 CLR 399). Therefore, the extinguishment of interests without statutory compensation may be valid under State law, though it raises political and fairness issues. No case law is cited in the Act, so practitioners must analyse this as a novel statutory scheme. The absence of litigation history does not mean the Act is uncontroversial; it simply means the courts have not yet been asked to interpret it. Any disputes will turn on the precise wording of sections 13, 7, and 8, and on whether the extinguishment of interests is an “acquisition” for constitutional purposes. The Act’s exclusion of Parts 9 and 10 of the Land Administration Act indicates the legislature foresaw potential acquisition arguments and chose to preclude statutory compensation. Court proceedings may test whether that exclusion is consistent with broader legal principles.

Several provisions in this Act contain traps for the unwary or create significant legal risk. No compensation for extinguished interests: Sections 7(3) and 8(2) extinguish “every other interest, whether registered or unregistered” in the land, and section 13 extinguishes any liability of State Government entities in respect of that extinguishment. This means that a person who held an unregistered lease, a licence, a profit à prendre, an easement, or even a right of entry has no statutory right to compensation. The only payment is to the City of Perth for lost car park revenue , not for loss of the land itself or for third party interests. The indemnity trap: The relevant indemnity survives for 20 years (section 6(2)), meaning the City of Perth remains liable to indemnify the State for past acts under the Chevron Agreement. The City cannot escape that liability even though its car park land was taken. If a court determines that the City must pay, it will have to pay from its own revenue without offset for the land it lost. Overriding planning laws: Section 11(2) says that no planning approval or planning requirement under a written law applies to the Registrar’s functions. This is absolute , it does not just waive the requirement but says it “does not apply”. That could mean that not only is approval not needed, but even the substantive provisions of planning laws are inapplicable. For developers or neighbours, this is a gotcha because normal development controls are bypassed. Liability exclusion is comprehensive: Section 13(1) covers “any loss, or other matter or thing” arising from the termination, repeal, transfer, extinguishment, or negotiations. This is broad enough to capture claims for economic loss, injurious affection, nuisance, or even personal injury if caused by the transfer process. The term “State Government entity” in section 13(5) extends to employees, agents, and contractors, meaning even independent contractors engaged by the State may be protected. No timeframe for the school: Section 15 says the Minister must “ensure that facilities for a government school are constructed”, but no deadline is given. The land could sit vacant for years. This creates uncertainty for nearby residents and businesses. Tax exemption scope: Section 12 exempts “anything that is done under this Part” from any tax, duty, levy, charge or fee under a written law. The exemption likely covers stamp duty on the transfer, but does it cover ongoing land tax? Probably not, because the exemption is limited to “anything done” (i.e., the transaction), not the subsequent holding. But if the Minister for Education is the owner, it may be exempt anyway under other laws. Potential constitutional vulnerability: If a court ever found that the extinguishment of interests amounted to an acquisition of property for a purpose in respect of which the Commonwealth has power, and the Act does not provide just terms, it might be invalid under s 51(xxxi) read with s 109 , but this is uncertain. The Act does not address this possibility. The definition of “interest”: The Act uses the definition from the Land Administration Act 1997 section 151(1), which is broad. That definition includes “any estate, interest, right or power” in land. This could capture equitable interests such as a purchaser’s interest under an unregistered contract, or mining rights, native title (though native title is a special case under Commonwealth law), or rights under an option agreement. The Act extinguishes them all. City of Perth excluded from State Government entity definition: Section 13(6) says State Government entity does not include a local government. That means the liability shield does not protect the City, so it can be sued for losses arising from the Act, but it has no corresponding right to sue the State. It also means the City can bear liability for its own acts connected to the Chevron Agreement (e.g., if the indemnity is invoked). Regulation-making power: Section 17 is broad , regulations can prescribe matters “necessary or convenient for giving effect to this Act”. This could be used to impose further conditions, fees (despite section 12’s exemption, regulations could create new charges), or procedural requirements that affect existing rights holders. Regulations can be made without parliamentary amendment, so the Act’s current protective structure could be modified. No appeal or review: The Act contains no provision for merits review of any decision (e.g., the Registrar’s actions or the Minister’s timing). Judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Commonwealth) does not apply because it is a State instrument. State-level judicial review (common law) is available but limited to jurisdictional error. The practical ability to challenge the Act’s implementation is minimal.

Compliance with this Act is almost entirely the responsibility of State Government entities and the Registrar of Titles. For private persons whose interests were extinguished, there is no ongoing compliance obligation , their rights have been removed. For the Minister for Education, compliance requires actively advancing the school construction project, though no specific milestones are set. The Minister should document steps taken, allocate funding, and engage with the relevant authorities (e.g., the Department of Education, the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority) to avoid accusations of non-compliance. The Minister should also keep the land title registrations up to date to ensure the school is built on the correct lot. For the Registrar of Titles, compliance is immediate: section 9 requires creation of the certificate of title for the development lot “as soon as practicable”. The Registrar should prioritise this step and ignore any planning approvals that would otherwise be required (section 11). The Registrar must also record the transfers and extinguishments (section 10). Failure to do so promptly could delay the school project and potentially expose the State to unnecessary risk. For the State, compliance requires paying the $4,217,000 to the City of Perth (section 14). The Treasurer should ensure the payment is made promptly and that the Consolidated Account is debited. For the City of Perth, compliance means accepting the payment and not challenging the transfer of its car park land (since the Act gives no legal basis to do so). The City also needs to be aware of its continuing indemnity obligation for 20 years (section 6). The City should keep records of all circumstances that could trigger the indemnity and notify any potentially liable third parties. It may wish to seek legal advice on the scope of the indemnity. For any other interest holders (e.g., lessees, mortgagees, easement holders), the Act extinguishes their interests without recourse to compensation under this statute. Their compliance obligation is nil, but they may need to adjust their business operations: a car park operator would need to vacate; a mortgagee would lose its security; an easement holder would lose the right of way. Such parties should seek independent legal advice on any potential common law or constitutional claims outside the Act. They cannot rely on this Act to preserve any rights. For planning authorities (Western Australian Planning Commission, local government), compliance means not requiring any approvals for the lot amalgamation or transfer (section 11). They should not demand fees or impose conditions. For taxation authorities (Office of State Revenue), compliance means not assessing stamp duty, land tax, or other charges on the Part 3 transactions (section 12). They should issue clearance or exemption notices as needed. For regulators under other Acts that might be affected (e.g., the Land Administration Act), compliance requires recognising that Parts 9 and 10 of that Act do not apply to anything done under this Act (section 13(4)). They should not process any compensation applications for this land. The Governor may make regulations under section 17, and all parties should monitor the WA Gazette for any such regulations that could impose additional compliance requirements. In summary, compliance is straightforward for State entities and passive for private parties. The real challenge will lie in managing the consequences of the loss of rights for those extinguished interest holders, but that is a matter of legal risk and political accountability rather than compliance with the Act itself.