City of Perth Bill - Looking Even More Doubtful‏

Legislation to expand the City of Perth's boundaries to include key assets such as Kings Park, the University of Western Australia and the QEII Medical Centre site is expected to be debated in Parliament this week. But its passage appears in doubt after Mr Barnett indicated he was not supportive of including certain amendments Labor wants in the City of Perth bill.

"If the Government does not support our amendments, we will be opposing the bill," Mr Templeman said.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-20/barnett-backs-scaffidi-but-rejects-labor-city-of-perth-changes/6869410

City of Perth Bill Yo-Yo: Mismanagement or Panic?

One minute the City of Perth Bill is oh-so-important. The next, it drops down below all these:
1. Terrorism (Extraordinary Powers) Amendment Bill 2015 (Minister for Police) (No. 150, 2r. – 24/9/15) Second reading. Adjourned debate (Mr D.A. Templeman).
2. Sentencing Amendment Bill 2014 (Minister for Police) (LC No. 88, 2r. – 24/2/15) Second reading. Adjourned debate (Leader of the House).
3. Perth Market (Disposal) Bill 2015 (Treasurer) (No. 149, 2r. – 23/9/15) Second reading. Adjourned debate (Mr D.A. Templeman).
4. Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 (Minister for Regional Development) (LC No. 141 , 2r. – 15/10/15) Second reading. Adjourned debate (Mr D.A. Templeman).
5. Graffiti Vandalism Bill 2015 (Minister for Police) (No. 147, 2r. – 15/9/15) To be read a third time.

No 3, the Perth Market (Disposal) Bill is all about flogging off an asset to try to disguise this Government's financial mismanagement - enough said.

To be fair, No 5, the Graffiti Vandalism Bill, is at the usually formal third reading stage, having been through all the detailed second reading debate and consideration in detail, but overall the yo-yoing of the City of Perth Bill up and down the Notice Paper smacks of either mismanagement of the Parliament's time or panic.

Quite likely, of course, that having already fragmented the second reading debate over three separate sessions, the Government is hoping that further delay will defuse the opposition, especially in its own ranks.

Dream on, Col!

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge 

City of Perth Bill is beyond amendment

The CCCC is pleased to see that the concerns we have raised with all members of the Legislative Assembly have been raised, by the ALP Opposition, by the Nationals and by Liberal MLA, Rob Johnson, as issues in the debate.

In the lead-up to the 'consideration in detail' stage of the debate it is worth reiterating our very strong view that, whilst there are many aspects of the Bill that would benefit from either deletion or amendment, the Bill itself is so fundamentally flawed that, even if amended, it should be rejected in its entirety.

Some matters, such as clause 37 (requiring the LGAB to take account of the (undefined) 'role and responsibilities of the capital city') and clauses 28-30 (granting additional powers to the Executive Director Public Health over Kings Park) could, it is true, simply be deleted from the Bill without substantial effect on the remainder.

Other issues, such as the role and function of the capital city (various parts of clauses 8, 10 and 11) and the role, function and composition of the proposed City of Perth Committee (clauses 12-15) are individually so complex that we believe they can only be resolved outside the constraints of formal parliamentary debate. There has been no effective stakeholder consultation on these issues (nor on the Bill as a whole) and yet the potential effects are profound.

Nor has there been consultation on the changes to the boundaries of the City of Perth (clauses 16-18), not only in respect of those residents and ratepayers who would be forced into the City of Perth but also on the flow-on financial and other effects for the remainders of the affected local governments. These changes also include extending the City of Perth to the middle of the Swan River, with potential flow-on effects for other local governments with river boundaries that have not been discussed with them.

Clause 27, repeal of the City of Perth Restructuring Act, 1993, the majority of which concerned the establishment of new local governments and setting their boundaries, is also something that requires deeper consideration than is possible in parliamentary debate.

And the matter of business voting enrolment not expiring unless the business itself gives notice (clauses 20/21) is one that requires more thought, not only in the context of the City of Perth but also for its potential implications for other local governments.

In summary, we strongly urge the Parliament to defeat this Bill - and it seems that there could well be the numbers in the Assembly to do so. It only needs the ALP to vote against and two Liberals to cross the floor - and one has already stated his intention to do so - and indicated that others would follow him.

Not only Kings Park under threat

Post News, 17th October, 2015

Stephanie Clegg, from the 'Friends of Bold Park, rightly expresses concern that proposed sites for a new (actually, recreated) high school for the western suburbs are in bushland, including two that are in Bold Park itself.

Those, including Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson (http://capitalcitycitizenscommittee.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/kings-park-simpson-playing-man-not-ball.html), and Perth MLA, Eleni Evangel, who deny that Kings Park could be under threat from the powers that would be granted to the Executive Director Public Health under the City of Perth Bill, currently before the Parliament, would do well to look at the proposals for a new (actually, recreated) high school in the western suburbs.

Both Bold Park and Kings Park are A-class reserves, which supposedly have the highest class of protection in WA.

Colin Barnett, as Minister for Education, was responsible for closing Hollywood, Swanbourne and Scarborough High Schools and is now frantically trying to undo the consequences by raiding valuable bushland.

Colin Barnett, as Premier, has been responsible for building the new Perth Children's Hospital with what, according to doctors, is too little capacity and doing so on a site with no scope for expansion - except over the road into Kings Park.

UPDATE 20th October 2015. Letter as above published in the West Australian today - long with a tongue-in-cheek one about Charlie's Chairlift.

Government Cannot Proceed With City of Perth Bill

The City of Perth Bill is in the middle of debate in the Legislative Assembly and is due to resume this week.

Surely, the Parliament cannot sensibly debate this legislation while the City of Perth Council has this sort of cloud hanging over its head and the Minister for Local Government is investigating both the Lord Mayor and her Deputy. Instead it should await the outcomes of the Minister's review and take the opportunity to consult constructively and to develop more appropriate and effective Capital City legislation.

Makes the City of Subiaco's resolution (http://capitalcitycitizenscommittee.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/subiaco-council-fires-salvo.html) look all the more prescient and relevant.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/29788660/state-government-to-review-perth-city-council

Sabre-Rattling or Genuine Concern to Improve Perth City Council?

I'm not sure whether this is sabre-rattling by Simpson or real concern about the Perth City Council. Either way, it makes the Government's task in trying, credibly, to talk up the City of Perth Bill in Parliament this week even tougher - from 'impossible' to ' requires a miracle'.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-12/review-of-perth-city-council-may-be-needed-minister/6847238

ALP Strong on Clause 37 but Unclear on its Stance Overall

The ALP has repeatedly said it will not support the City of Perth Bill if clause 37 is not removed (http://capitalcitycitizenscommittee.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/alp-fires-first-shot.html). Clause 37 expands the criteria for the Local Government Advisory Board to recommend boundary changes to include undefined criteria based on the role and function of the capital city.

Clause 37 certainly needs to go - this is a cancer that would allow the City of Perth to grow on its own terms (http://capitalcitycitizenscommittee.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/cop-bill-clause-37-would-be-cancer.html.)

And there is a need for more effective accountability - although I'd prefer to see Councillors who knew right from wrong without having to be told.

But there is so much more in the City of Perth Bill that is not in the interests of the community (http://capitalcitycitizenscommittee.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/why-city-of-perth-bill-is-fatally-flawed.html), including: 

- The Bill would force 3000 Subiaco residents into a dysfunctional City of Perth that has repeatedly said it doesn't want residential areas. 

- The Bill would give an unelected official (the Executive Director, Public Health) local government powers over Kings Park and threatens the integrity of Kings Park.

- Creation of an ill-defined and unaccountable City of Perth Committee that meets at the behest of the Premier rather than being a collaboration between state and local governments.

- It is possible that the Bill disestablishes the City of Vincent and the Towns of Victoria Park and Cambridge by repealing the City of Perth Restructuring Act, 1993

- Extension of City of Perth boundaries to the middle of the river - setting the scene for cost-shifting for river foreshore management - in the City of Perth for now but eventually for other local governments.

- Jurisdictional separation of UWA and QEII from their surrounding communities.

The ALP has raised these issues in Parliament but has not said how it proposes to address them or whether they will cause them to defeat the Bill.

http://www.perthnow.com.au. Click to enlarge

http://www.perthnow.com.au. Click to enlarge

Subiaco Council Fires A Salvo

Having previously passed a strong resolution opposing the City of Perth Bill, the City of Subiaco has now written to all Western Australian MPs calling on them to reject the Bill.

The voices are getting louder. Barnett and Simpson might not hear, but we hope that others in the Parliament are listening.

Post News, 10th October, 2015

Previous Subiaco resolution opposing the City of Perth Bill:

CoP Bill Clause 37 Would Be Cancer

Not for the first time, Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, appears not to understand his own proposed legislation ('Bid to block Burswood land grab', West Australian, 9th October, 2015). 

The concern with the last clause of the City of Perth Bill is not that the Local Government Advisory Board (LGAB) might 'change its tune' over Burswood and the City of Perth, as Simpson claims, but that it changes the basis on which the LGAB is required to assess any proposal for such a change.

It would do so by requiring that the LGAB, in addition to its current criteria, "have regard to the special significance of the role and responsibilities of the City of Perth that flow from Perth being the capital of Western Australia", but without defining the "role and responsibilities". In practice, such definition would be derived from any proposal made by the City of Perth itself or by the Minister for Local Government or from Government policy communicated to the Board.

We know that the Premier, the Minister and the City of Perth all still want the Burswood Peninsula to be in the City of Perth. The City of Perth has also cast covetous eyes on the commercial areas of both Subiaco and Vincent.

The clause that Minister Simpson so disingenuously casts as benign would, in practice, be a cancer allowing the City of Perth to grow on its own terms.

West Australian, 9th October, 2015

Victoria Park (Council and MLA) Join Battle

Some of us have been concerned that the ALP Opposition has been leaving too many doors open to accepting an amended City of Perth Bill, with removal of clause 37 (requiring the Local Government Advisory Board to consider unspecified 'capital city' role and function for boundary change porposals for the City of Perth) being its single 'non-negotiable'.

In today's Southern Gazette, Victoria Park MLA, Ben Wyatt, in conjunction with Town of Victoria Park CEO, Antony Vuletta, appears to say the ALP will draw the line at (at the very least) requiring removal of both Clause 37 and Clause 29. 

Clause 29 is the clause that gives powers to the Executive Director Public Health - but only over Kings Park. It is the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill, also before the Parliament right now, that contains the same provision for all A-Class reserves, but the CoP Bill would, if passed, set a precedent.

Even if the City of Perth Bill is defeated, the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill is also a threat on the same basis.

Both Bills must be defeated before Kings Park and Burswood (not to mention Subiaco and Vincent) are safe.

Southern Gazette, 6th October 2015

A New Light on the City of Perth Committee?

The WA media have been full of reports about the Crime and Corruption Commission's report on Perth Lord Mayor, Lisa Scaffidi (eg https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/29723044/lisa-scaffidi-failed-to-declare-gifts-travel-ccc; http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-06/perth-mayors-beijing-olympics-trip-with-bhp-unwise-barnett-says/6830684; http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/perth-lord-mayor-lisa-scaffidi-signally-failed-in-duties-corruption-and-crime-commission/story-fnhocxo3-1227557825976?sv=db7d3f447044c1010f885e64ef91dd9e&utm_source=Perth%20Now&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial).

It is interesting that the Premier reportedly has said that "if one of his ministers had behaved in this way he would probably look at resignation"(https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/29725980/lord-mayor-digs-in-over-ccc-findings).

This has been hanging over the Lord Mayor for some time. Does it cast new light on the way the City of Perth Committee has been framed in the City of Perth Bill - vaguely enough to allow an effective state government takeover of the City of Perth on major development and infrastructure issues? 

Do the findings of the CCC potentially give the Premier 'justification' for doing so if the City of Perth Bill passes the Parliament?

Of course the Bill has yet to pass the Parliament - and there are strong doubts as to whether it will - but the CCCC will continue to be vigilant and lobby for rejection of the Bill in its entirety. 

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/29723044/lisa-scaffidi-failed-to-declare-gifts-travel-ccc