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

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.