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 |
No comments:
Post a Comment