Something to think about

The so-called silly season is, in reality, often a good time to think about those things we might normally be too busy to consider. One of those is the  mystery of why UWA  (or, more correctly, its vice chancellor - I have heard that a lot of UWA staff don't share his views - probably even fewer do now after his Christmas gift of unemployment) is so obsessed with being in the City of Perth. Note that this is not just about being in one, rather than three, local governments, as either of the other two (Subiaco and Nedlands) would be more logical than the City of Perth.

This short piece from the Subiaco Post got me thinking.

Subiaco Post, 22nd December 2015

Another Bad Week for Marmion and McGowan

Hot on the heels of 5th November, the Subiaco Post has followed up with letters (including one based on the previous post on this blog) and a report of a 'No-Confidence-in-Bill-Marmion" motion passed unanimously by the City of Subiaco Annual Meeting of electors.

Good to see one media organisation willing to report things as they are.

Bad Week for Marmion and McGowan

Three letters in the Subiaco Post of 5th December ('Independent MP for Nedlands?', 'Opposition has changed its tune on Dadour poll' and ' Who will keep the bastards honest?') raised, in the context of the City of Perth Bill, the issue of integrity in politics.

Now there are some who would say that say that the very phrase 'integrity in politics' is an oxymoron, but that need not be the case - witness the principled and consistent stands taken by the Nationals and by Liberal MLA, Rob Johnson, in opposing the City of Perth Bill.

As Jeremy Mowe points out, Nedlands MLA, Bill Marmion, has been consistent - but only in being unwilling to represent the interests of a substantial proportion of his electors. Marmion's only apparent principle appears to have been to elevate his status and salary as Cabinet Minister over the values of representative democracy.

Nedlands electors may be used to this, but many would have had more (if misplaced) faith in the ALP keeping its word.

True, the ALP might have removed some of the more egregious aspects of the City of Perth Bill, but it remains one of the poorest pieces of legislation I have seen after a career of 45 years in public policy. 

The Bill still forces 3000 residents of Subiaco into the City of Perth with no say in what happens. No matter how Mark McGowan might grandstand about 'saving Burswood', the fact remains that he has totally ignored the western land and revenue grab and the effect it will have on the rest of Subiaco.

The Bill still gives additional powers to the unelected Executive Director, Public Health, that, despite the denials of Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, threaten Kings Park, especially through expansion of hospital and medical-related facilities from QEII and Perth Children's Hospital.

The Bill would create a City of Perth Committee, with poorly-specified role and function, that, according to Tony Simpson wouldn't even have to keep minutes of meetings, let alone be accountable to either Parliament or the Perth City Council.

It is all the more distressing for residents of Subiaco and those who care about Kings Park that the Opposition would almost certainly have had the numbers to defeat the Bill at an early stage in the Legislative Assembly. With the Nationals and Rob Johnson voting against, it would only have required one more Liberal to cross the floor for the Bill to be defeated. I am reliably informed that there was at least one more willing to do so had the ALP not signalled its capitulation to Barnett. 

City of Perth Bill: Curates Egg Without The Good Parts

The City of Perth Bill has been passed, with amendments, by the Legislative Assembly and has been introduced into the Legislative Council where it has had its First Reading and the Second Reading (debate) stage has commenced – only the Minister’s speech has so far been heard and debate was adjourned.

Thanks to the Government's inability to manage its legislative program and teh ensuing chaos that led to the Legislative Council sitting until 4.30am on its last day of sitting, the City of Perth Bill now cannot be considered until Parliament's next week of sitting, beginning 16^th February 2016.

The amendments passed by the Legislative Assembly were:

1.     Removal of clause 37, which required the Local Government Advisory Board to have consideration to the role of the City of Perth as capital city when considering any proposals for boundary changes.

2.     Effective replacement of clause 37 by a new clause 16A, which states that any future changes to City of Perth boundaries shall require Act of Parliament.

3.     Removal of clauses 20 and 21, which would have removed automatic expiration of non-resident enrolments for the City of Perth electoral roll.

4.     Imposition of transparency and reporting requirements for gifts (substantially new Part 4, Division 4) to be applied to all local governments.

The passage of the Bill through the Legislative Assembly raised as many questions as it answered, including:

1.     Simpson’s repeated assertions that the clauses 29 and 30 were simply a restatement of powers already available in the Health Act, which prompts two questions:

a)     Why the need to include the provisions in the CoP Bill at all?

b)     Why is the wording different and apparently granting wider powers? Broad definition of public health and “all the powers of a local government” whereas the Health Act restricts to powers of local government environmental health officer.

2.     Lack of any substantial debate on the full extent of the boundary changes, especially with respect to the 3000 residents of Subiaco who would be forcibly moved into the City of Perth.

3.     No mention of the effects (financial and other) of the boundary changes on the rest of the City of Subiaco.

4.     The Minister’s assertion that the City of Perth Committee would not be required to keep minutes or other record of proceedings.

5.     The appropriateness of imposing requirements on all local governments through a Bill that has the primary purpose of asserting the difference between the City of Perth and other local governments.

Since the City of Perth Bill passed the Legislative Assembly, there has been at least one significant change in circumstances that affects the rationale for part of the Bill:

The WA Government has announced that Royal Perth Hospital will be the “centerpiece of East Metropolitan Health service”.  This effectively destroys any argument that the City of Perth, as capital city, should include the QEII Medical Centre and the Perth Children’s Hospital. To the extent that a capital city ‘needs to have’ a major hospital within its boundaries, that role will now continue to be played by Royal Perth Hospital.

If QEII and PCH are not ‘required’, it also calls into question the basis on which the residential areas between them and the University campus are included in the boundary changes.

Whether or not the main campus of UWA is within a single local government area is largely of academic interest, as planning and development matters are determined by the WA Planning Commission, so if the University thinks it important, perhaps that could be allowed to stand. The same result could be achieved, however, by placing all the UWA main campus into Subiaco rather than City of Perth

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-25/east-metropolitan-health-service-unveiled/6972176