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.