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