Chaos, Confusion or C@&% Up

When Clause 17 of the City of Perth Bill was being debated in the Legislative Assembly, the discussion was almost entirely about the moving of the CoP boundary to the middle of the Swan River. Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, repeatedly assured everyone that the change was only to ensure that the City of Perth had the necessary authority of a local government in respect of all land-based and jetty-related activities.

For all the time devoted to that subject, it appears that they all missed an issue of timing - and the City of Perth is belatedly considering that at its Council Meeting next Tuesday. The problem is a transitory,but important, one. As the City of Perth report states:
The Elizabeth Quay development is nearing completion. The Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority will retain development control of the area, however, the City of Perth is expected to take responsibility for the application of its local laws as well as health and other legislation administered by local government as executive functions. An area of the Elizabeth Quay development is outside of the City of Perth boundary and action is required to bring it within the jurisdiction of the City.

The CoP proposed solution is to seek a minor change in its boundaries, to include all of Elizabeth Quay, until the City of Perth Act comes into force. This appears to be a sensible approach that could be done as a minor change not requiring public consultation - and would be required even if the City of Perth Bill were not, for some reason, to become law - but the situation should never have arisen.

Kate Emery in the West Australian (below) doesn't appear to have appreciated the transitional nature of the problem and implies that it is a power grab by the City of Perth.

If you want to read what the City of Perth is really saying, you can find the report at http://www.perth.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/events/Agenda%20-%20Council%20Meeting%20-%20AGENDA%20-%2024%20November%202015_1.pdf, pages 94-96

Labor Shafts The Subiaco 3000

In the previous local government so-called reform process, Labor was left at the post and only started to make up some ground when it became clear that community opposition was gathering such momentum that it might, against all the odds, actually succeed.

With the City of Perth Bill, after appearing to promise so much, Labor went to water and abandoned the residents of Subiaco's south ward when the numbers were there to defeat the Bill outright.

And as for Labor's agreeing to broaden the scope of the Bill to allow for transparency and accountability requirements for all local governments, the best that can be said for that is that it was a misuse of parliamentary process to do it so late, without consultation and via a Bill that otherwise did not directly affect other local governments except Subiaco and Nedlands.

Thanks to the Nationals and to Rob Johnson for having, and sticking to, principles. And thanks to Chris Tallentire (ALP, Gosnells), who at least spoke up for the Subiaco 3000 even if he couldn't find it in himself to vote against the party line. See how your local member voted (foot of this post - two Nationals, Terry Redman and Brendan Grylls were absent but we know they would have voted against the Bill) and let them know if you are disgusted by the way the Subiaco residents have been treated simply to make life a little easier for the University of WA (see Mark McGowan's comment in the first part (columns 4 and 5) of the Post article below).

I must admit, though, that I did like Ben Wyatt's characterisation of the Bill's passing the Legislative Assembly as "The Premier has snatched a committee from the jaws of defeat", for there is very little else of substance in the Bill apart from the forced relocation of the Subiaco 3000. Even with little substance, however, it would still be bad law if passed by the Legislative Council.

Needless to say, the mainstream media (ABC and the West Australian) homed in on the accountability aspect and almost entirely ignored the fundamental issues in the City of Perth Bill. As too often has been the case over the past couple of years, notwithstanding some important contributions from the ABC, it was left to the Post to provide a more rounded coverage.

Update On ALP Deal-With-The-Devil

Debate on the City of Perth Bill has ended for the day. There are still 15 clauses to go - one of which (clause 37) must automatically be removed from the Bill as a consequence of the successful Opposition amendment, Clause 15A.

Below is an update of the previous post (http://capitalcitycitizenscommittee.blogspot.com.au/2015/11/has-alp-done-deal-with-devil.html) which outlined what the CCCC has achieved in respect of the nine key issues.

1.    The Bill does little or nothing to improve the governance of the Capital City. Far from improving and strengthening the City of Perth, the City of Perth Committee (Cl 12-15) would weaken it. The proposed ‘City of Perth Committee’ would not be accountable to the Parliament, the Perth City Council or the community. 

This appears to have gone through to the keeper, with Simpson stating that the Committee doesn't even have to keep minutes, never mind making them public. The Opposition barely batted a collective eyelid when Simpson said this.

It is worth noting, however, that Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, stated in Parliament that the City of Perth Committee does not have to keep minutes, let alone make them publicly-available (Clause 15 - 'Committee may regulate own procedure').

This is a surprising assertion, but was allowed to go unchallenged, as not to do so would surely be in breach of the State Records Act, 2000, which applies to, inter alia:

5.    A Minister of the Crown. 

9.    An incorporated or unincorporated body established or continued for a public purpose under a written law. 

12.  A local government or regional local government under the Local Government Act 1995 . 

15.  A commission, board, committee or other body established by, or a person appointed by, the Governor or the Government of the State or a Minister of the Crown to advise on, inquire into or investigate any matter. 

It would also seem to be contrary to the accountability and reporting requirements of the Local Government Act, 1995, at least as far as the participation of the City of Perth is concerned.

2.    The proposal for City of Perth boundaries (Cl 17/18) runs counter to key criteria for assessment of boundary change or amalgamation proposals, including: ‘community of interest’ and ‘natural barriers’ (‘physical and topographic features’ and ‘transport and communications’). 

3.    Jurisdictional separation of UWA and QEII from their surrounding communities (Cl 17/18) endangers the partnerships built up over many years for joint projects with Subiaco and Nedlands Councils. 

4.    Extending the CoP boundary to the middle of the river (Cl 17/18) creates a precedent and uncertainty for local government maintenance responsibilities and cost-shifting. 

Debate on Clauses 17 and 18 was entirely about the boundary being in the middle of the Swan River.

Explicit statement from Simpson in Parliament that this does not affect river management (still with Parks and Wildlife) but is purely to allow CoP to manage health and similar issues on structures over the river. He stated more than once that the final responsibility for river management and developments on/in river is Parks and Wildlife.

Residents of Subiaco didn’t even rate a mention before the clauses were passed. This is a gross dereliction of duty by our elected representatives in the Legislative Assembly.

5.    The City of Perth has repeatedly said that it doesn’t want residential areas. 

No mention – and don’t expect one now.

6.     The Bill repeals (Cl 27) the City of Perth Restructuring Act, 1993, which established Vincent, Victoria Park and Cambridge, with the effect of disestablishing those local governments. 

Explicit statement from Simpson in Parliament that this does not disestablish City of Vincent, Town of Victoria Park or Town of Cambridge.

7.    The Bill creates uncertainty about future changes to boundaries of the City of Perth, including Burswood, by requiring the Local Government Advisory Board to take account of ‘capital city status’ without defining what it means (Cl 37). 

The Opposition amendment (clause 15A) that any future changes to City of Perth boundaries require an Act of Parliament has been passed. This means that clause 37 has to be removed.

8.    There are no benefits from including Kings Park in the City of Perth (Cl 17/18). Doing so may create pressure for inappropriate development in the Park, especially with the additional powers given to the Executive Director of Public Health (Cl 29/30). 

Explicit statement from Simpson in Parliament that this does not give EDPH any more powers than he already has under the Health Act. This is important, given that the wording in the City of Perth is different from that in the Health Act.

9.    Business/property owner voting enrolment would not expire unless the enrolee notifies the City of Perth (Cl 20/21), creating potential for rorting the system or simple inertia to entrench business votes. 

These clauses were voted down without a formal division being required.

It looks to me that:

- 7 and 9 have been achieved;

- a reasonable amount has been achieved on 4, 6 and 8 (at least through clear statements that can be taken to be the intent of Parliament when passing the Act), 

- 1, 2, 3, and 5 have been lost

Whilst this is not a bad achievement for a voluntary group of concerned citizens, this will be of small comfort to the residents of Subiaco who are now almost certain to find themselves involuntary and unwanted citizens of the City of Perth.

Nationals Stick To Principles - But Has ALP Done A Deal With The Devil?

It would be unusual for a Government Bill to be defeated at the Second Reading Stage, but that could have happened to the City of Perth Bill yesterday in the Legislative Assembly. That only the Nationals voted against further consideration of the Bill raises suspicions that the Labor Opposition has done a deal with the Barnett Government (http://capitalcitycitizenscommittee.blogspot.com.au/2015/11/has-alp-done-deal-with-devil.html).

Anyway, we congratulate Terry Redman and the Nationals for sticking to their principles to oppose forced amalgamations.

Has ALP Done A Deal With The Devil?

Has the ALP done a deal with Barnett over the City of Perth Bill?

It appears from what passed for debate in the Legislative Assembly yesterday (Tuesday, 17^th November) that:

-    The ALP has supported the Government’s extension of the City of Perth Bill to impose requirements on all local governments. Whatever the merits of the transparency/accountability requirements, it is inappropriate to use legislation specific to one local government in this way. The correct way of adding such requirements is through amending the Local Government Act directly.

-    The Government has accepted the Opposition’s ‘non-negotiable’ removal of clause 37 (see point 7, below) and even its proposed amendment that any future change to City of Perth boundaries should require an Act of Parliament.

If this is correct, the ALP has put itself in an invidious position. In supporting expansion of the scope of the Bill (for transparency/accountability matters) to all local governments, the Opposition has allowed itself to be wedged - if it now votes against the Bill, Barnett will accuse it of hypocrisy and not being serious about accountability.

If the Opposition does roll over, it’s worth a look at what has been achieved in respect of the nine key issues identified by the CCCC.

1.     The Bill does little or nothing to improve the governance of the Capital City. Far from improving and strengthening the City of Perth, the City of Perth Committee (Cl 12-15) would weaken it. The proposed ‘City of Perth Committee’ would not be accountable to the Parliament, the Perth City Council or the community. 

This appears to have gone through to the keeper, with Simpson stating that the Committee doesn't even have to keep minutes, never mind making them public. The Opposition barely batted a collective eyelid when Simpson said this.

It is worth noting, however, that Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, stated in Parliament that the City of Perth Committee does not have to keep minutes, let alone make them publicly-available (Clause 15 - 'Committee may regulate own procedure').

This is a surprising assertion, but was allowed to go unchallenged, as not to do so would surely be in breach of the State Records Act, 2000, which applies to, inter alia:

5.    A Minister of the Crown. 

9.    An incorporated or unincorporated body established or continued for a public purpose under a written law. 

12.  A local government or regional local government under the Local Government Act 1995 . 

15.  A commission, board, committee or other body established by, or a person appointed by, the Governor or the Government of the State or a Minister of the Crown to advise on, inquire into or investigate any matter. 

It would also seem to be contrary to the accountability and reporting requirements of the Local Government Act, 1995, at least as far as the participation of the City of Perth is concerned.

2.    The proposal for City of Perth boundaries (Cl 17/18) runs counter to key criteria for assessment of boundary change or amalgamation proposals, including: ‘community of interest’ and ‘natural barriers’ (‘physical and topographic features’ and ‘transport and communications’). 

This has not yet been debated.

3.    Jurisdictional separation of UWA and QEII from their surrounding communities (Cl 17/18) endangers the partnerships built up over many years for joint projects with Subiaco and Nedlands Councils. 

This has not yet been debated.

4.    Extending the CoP boundary to the middle of the river (Cl 17/18) creates a precedent and uncertainty for local government maintenance responsibilities and cost-shifting. 

Explicit statement from Simpson in Parliament that this does not affect river management (still with Parks and Wildlife) but is purely to allow CoP to manage health and similar issues on structures over the river. He stated more than once that the final responsibility for river management and developments on/in river is Parks and Wildlife.

5.    The City of Perth has repeatedly said that it doesn’t want residential areas. 

No mention yet.

6.     The Bill repeals (Cl 27) the City of Perth Restructuring Act, 1993, which established Vincent, Victoria Park and Cambridge, with the effect of disestablishing those local governments. 

Explicit statement from Simpson in Parliament that this does not disestablish City of Vincent, Town of Victoria Park or Town of Cambridge.

7.    The Bill creates uncertainty about future changes to boundaries of the City of Perth, including Burswood, by requiring the Local Government Advisory Board to take account of ‘capital city status’ without defining what it means (Cl 37). 

Simpson appears to have said that the Government agrees to removal of clause 37 and to Opposition amendment that any future changes to City of Perth boundaries require Act of Parliament.

8.    There are no benefits from including Kings Park in the City of Perth (Cl 17/18). Doing so may create pressure for inappropriate development in the Park, especially with the additional powers given to the Executive Director of Public Health (Cl 29/30). 

Explicit statement from Simpson in Parliament that this does not give EDPH any more powers than he already has under the Health Act. This is important, given that the wording in the City of Perth is different from that in the Health Act.

9.    Business/property owner voting enrolment would not expire unless the enrolee notifies the City of Perth (Cl 20/21), creating potential for rorting the system or simple inertia to entrench business votes. 

This has not yet been debated.

It looks to me that a reasonable amount has been achieved on 4, 6, 7 and 8 (at least through clear statements that can be taken to be the intent of Parliament when passing the Act), but the state of 1 is a great disappointment - the remainder (2, 3, 5, and 9) have not yet been debated. Simpson has batted off the issue of clause 20 so far, so this could still end up as the deal-breaker.