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, 17th
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.
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.
