Ironic Recognition

Congratulations to Cecilia Brooke for the award of the Premier's Australia Day Active Citizenship Award for a person over 25 years for the City of South Perth.

There's a lot more to the citation than her tireless work to prevent the forced amalgamation of South Perth and Victoria Park (and now to protect Kings Park and the residents of Subiaco against the City of Perth Bill), but many of us beyond South Perth will be forever thankful to Cecilia for her role in getting Colin Barnett to "fly the white flag" and back down from his forced local government amalgamations.

I wonder if Barnett gets the irony - we hope there's more to come.

Subi Pulls No Punches - But We Should ALL Be Concerned

The City of Subiaco was a key player in keeping the Barnett Government something approaching honest in the initial forced local government amalgamation fiasco. Now it is being given payback in the City of Perth Bill, after Nedlands and Victoria Park objections to the original Bill were accommodated.

There has been no justification presented for forcing the Subiaco 3000 into the City of Perth and, as we have previously noted here (http://capitalcitycitizenscommittee.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/the-forgotten-17000.html), the remaining 17,000 Subiaco residents will be forced to pay a hefty price for the Premier's arrogance and vindictiveness.

Time for all who care about community to stand up and be counted. There is still time to write to your Upper House MPs (list, with email addresses, at http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/parliament/memblist.nsf/WebCurrMembElectorate?OpenView&Start=1&Count=1000&Expand=1#1) telling them you object to the treatment of Subiaco residents, whether the 3000 being forced into the City of Perth or the 17,000 who will be forced to pay for it.

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/city-of-perth-scandal-subiaco-mayor-takes-swipe-at-controversial-council-20160122-gmbs8z.html

Simple, Really

The Forgotten 17,000

The 3000 residents of Subiaco who would be forcibly transferred to the City of Perth under the City of Perth Bill have received scandalously little attention during the parliamentary debate on the City of Perth Bill. The focus has almost entirely been on the University of Western Australia, the QEII Medical Centre and the Perth Children's Hospital. The Subiaco 3000 are, apparently, simply collateral damage.

To the extent they have been mentioned, it has been on the basis that those residents would have their rates reduced by 30% to the City of Perth residential rate level - which conveniently ignores the fact that the City of Perth currently subsidises residential rates and has expressed its intention to reduce or remove this subsidy.

http://www.perth.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/City%20of%20Perth%20Annual%20Budget%202014-2015.pdf

The remaining 17,000 residents of Subiaco have not been scandalously ignored - they have been totally ignored by our elected representatives in Parliament.

Now, the City of Subiaco has exposed the effects on these hitherto invisible people. In an item for discussion at the Subiaco Council Meeting on 19th January (http://www.subiaco.wa.gov.au/getattachment/b4fae429-af3e-4f96-920e-259cd9b986a0/OCM-19-January-2016 - see item at foot of this post), the revenue loss and (to be fair and balanced) the corresponding reductions in costs have been identified. The net result is an increase in rates of 7% over and above what would be necessary for other reasons - or a reduction in services.

All this simply for the aggrandisement of the City of Perth and at the sole instigation of the Premier, Colin Barnett - at a time when he is critical of local governments for rate rises and threatening rate capping.

There is a well-known principle in economics (the 'Pareto principle') that something is worth doing if those who benefit can potentially compensate those who lose and still be better off (in sort, that the benefits exceed the costs) - but this is hotly disputed where the gainers do not actually compensate the losers.

In this case, the State Government could include compensation provisions for Subiaco ratepayers and residents in the City of Perth - but I'm not holding my breath for this to happen. Not only is Colin Barnett's track record on equity issues not encouraging, but there has been absolutely no evidence of benefits produced - and it is therefore likely that the gainers could not, even potentially, compensate the losers.

All makes the City of Perth Bill sound like like very bad public policy - but we already knew that.

 

Kings Park - Prime Real Estate?

Alston, cartoonist for the West Australian, is surely a bit over the top (well, we certainly hope so) when he 'predicts' subdivision of Kings Park into 400 square metre residential lots in 2016. Even Barnett and Co surely couldn't see flogging off parts of Kings Park as a partial 'cure' for the economic and financial ills they have created - could they?! On the other hand, it's not a million miles removed from Lord Mayor Lisa Scaffidi's thought bubble about a (publicly-funded) road tunnel under Kings Park and turning Mounts Bay Road, at the foot of Kings Park, into an exclusive (private) residential enclave.

However, we should all be concerned that the City of Perth Bill, currently before the Legislative Council (having passed the Legislative Assembly in November 2015), gives the unelected Executive Director, Public Health, "all the powers of a local government" in respect of "public health". In turn, 'public health' is defined so broadly that it could be construed to include development for health-related purposes, such as hospital expansion, provision of health-related services and even car parking.

The Government, however, claims that the provision in the City of Perth Bill simply clarifies the existing situation and clauses 29 and 30 are 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 through the broad definition of public health and granting of “all the powers of a local government”, whereas the Health Act  restricts to powers of local government environmental health officer.

We have previously addressed this important issue on this blog (http://capitalcitycitizenscommittee.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/kings-park-simpson-playing-man-not-ball.html) and nothing since then has made us any less concerned.

If the Government's claim about its intention is correct, all it needs is a simple statement along the following lines:  “The Executive Director Public Health shall have the powers granted him by the Section 12 of the Health Act 1911  in respect of Kings Park”. Having different wording dealing with the same powers in the City of Perth Act and the Health Act would not only be confusing and lead to legal ambiguity that might have to be resolved by the courts, it would also complicate amendment of either Act in the future.

The Weekend West, 16th January 2016