And The Losers Are…

The City of Perth Bill has passed the Parliament thanks to collusion between most Liberals and the ALP.

Remember this when it comes to the 2017 State Election.

Thanks to Hon Simon O'Brien, MLC, for his spirited, eloquent and principled statements, right to the end, and to Hon Robin Chapple, MLC, for tilting at windmills by moving amendments - but we are bemused at the absence of any amendment dealing with the boundary change affecting Subiaco.

Thanks also to the Hon Martin Aldridge and the Hon Rick Mazza, and Rob Johnson in the Legislative Assembly, for speaking against the Bill and asking some awkward questions many of which remain unanswered.

The Upper House voting speaks for itself, with only the Greens, the Nationals, the Hon Simon O'Brien and the Hon Rick Mazza voting against the Bill - and the Hon Nigel Hallet effectively doing so by having a 'pair' with an ALP member.

And now, in the tradition of the Oscars, the LOSERS are:

- The 3000 residents of Subiaco who will be forcibly relocated into the City of Perth without any say in the matter - their local MP (Bill Marmion) was worse than useless.

- The remaining ratepayers and residents of Subiaco, who will be faced with increased costs as a result of losing the Subiaco 3000.

- Nedlands Liberal MLA, Bill Marmion, who abandoned and refused to represent his constituents in Subiaco and should pay the price at the 2017 election.

- The Governance of WA, as a result of the collusion between the two major parties.

- The dignity of the Legislative Council, as a result of its being unwilling to investigate not only the substantial detail of the Bill in committee but also the transitional provisions which give the Executive power to change the legislation without the approval of Parliament.

- The people of WA for all of whom Perth is the capital city and who deserve better than the "draft second-rate press release" (thank you Simon O'Brien) that masquerades as the City of Perth Act.

And the WINNER is ……… no one.

This Act does nothing constructive for anyone. It simply feeds the vanity of the Premier and the Lord Mayor of Perth.

As the Hon Simon O'Brien said in Parliament: [I can't understand] "why all of this is necessary, beyond some vague representation that 'Some other cities have got a capital city legislation, so we should have it, too.' … The community as a whole has not been involved in it, and we cannot identify anything that it will produce. … It is pointless legislation—totally pointless."

Post amended 28th February to correct voting list.

Kings Park - Prime Real Estate?

Alston, cartoonist for the West Australian, is surely a bit over the top (well, we certainly hope so) when he 'predicts' subdivision of Kings Park into 400 square metre residential lots in 2016. Even Barnett and Co surely couldn't see flogging off parts of Kings Park as a partial 'cure' for the economic and financial ills they have created - could they?! On the other hand, it's not a million miles removed from Lord Mayor Lisa Scaffidi's thought bubble about a (publicly-funded) road tunnel under Kings Park and turning Mounts Bay Road, at the foot of Kings Park, into an exclusive (private) residential enclave.

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

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

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.

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.

City of Perth Bill - Looking Even More Doubtful‏

Legislation to expand the City of Perth's boundaries to include key assets such as Kings Park, the University of Western Australia and the QEII Medical Centre site is expected to be debated in Parliament this week. But its passage appears in doubt after Mr Barnett indicated he was not supportive of including certain amendments Labor wants in the City of Perth bill.

"If the Government does not support our amendments, we will be opposing the bill," Mr Templeman said.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-20/barnett-backs-scaffidi-but-rejects-labor-city-of-perth-changes/6869410

Not only Kings Park under threat

Post News, 17th October, 2015

Stephanie Clegg, from the 'Friends of Bold Park, rightly expresses concern that proposed sites for a new (actually, recreated) high school for the western suburbs are in bushland, including two that are in Bold Park itself.

Those, including Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson (http://capitalcitycitizenscommittee.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/kings-park-simpson-playing-man-not-ball.html), and Perth MLA, Eleni Evangel, who deny that Kings Park could be under threat from the powers that would be granted to the Executive Director Public Health under the City of Perth Bill, currently before the Parliament, would do well to look at the proposals for a new (actually, recreated) high school in the western suburbs.

Both Bold Park and Kings Park are A-class reserves, which supposedly have the highest class of protection in WA.

Colin Barnett, as Minister for Education, was responsible for closing Hollywood, Swanbourne and Scarborough High Schools and is now frantically trying to undo the consequences by raiding valuable bushland.

Colin Barnett, as Premier, has been responsible for building the new Perth Children's Hospital with what, according to doctors, is too little capacity and doing so on a site with no scope for expansion - except over the road into Kings Park.

UPDATE 20th October 2015. Letter as above published in the West Australian today - long with a tongue-in-cheek one about Charlie's Chairlift.

ALP Strong on Clause 37 but Unclear on its Stance Overall

The ALP has repeatedly said it will not support the City of Perth Bill if clause 37 is not removed (http://capitalcitycitizenscommittee.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/alp-fires-first-shot.html). Clause 37 expands the criteria for the Local Government Advisory Board to recommend boundary changes to include undefined criteria based on the role and function of the capital city.

Clause 37 certainly needs to go - this is a cancer that would allow the City of Perth to grow on its own terms (http://capitalcitycitizenscommittee.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/cop-bill-clause-37-would-be-cancer.html.)

And there is a need for more effective accountability - although I'd prefer to see Councillors who knew right from wrong without having to be told.

But there is so much more in the City of Perth Bill that is not in the interests of the community (http://capitalcitycitizenscommittee.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/why-city-of-perth-bill-is-fatally-flawed.html), including: 

- The Bill would force 3000 Subiaco residents into a dysfunctional City of Perth that has repeatedly said it doesn't want residential areas. 

- The Bill would give an unelected official (the Executive Director, Public Health) local government powers over Kings Park and threatens the integrity of Kings Park.

- Creation of an ill-defined and unaccountable City of Perth Committee that meets at the behest of the Premier rather than being a collaboration between state and local governments.

- It is possible that the Bill disestablishes the City of Vincent and the Towns of Victoria Park and Cambridge by repealing the City of Perth Restructuring Act, 1993

- Extension of City of Perth boundaries to the middle of the river - setting the scene for cost-shifting for river foreshore management - in the City of Perth for now but eventually for other local governments.

- Jurisdictional separation of UWA and QEII from their surrounding communities.

The ALP has raised these issues in Parliament but has not said how it proposes to address them or whether they will cause them to defeat the Bill.

http://www.perthnow.com.au. Click to enlarge

http://www.perthnow.com.au. Click to enlarge

Subiaco Council Fires A Salvo

Having previously passed a strong resolution opposing the City of Perth Bill, the City of Subiaco has now written to all Western Australian MPs calling on them to reject the Bill.

The voices are getting louder. Barnett and Simpson might not hear, but we hope that others in the Parliament are listening.

Post News, 10th October, 2015

Previous Subiaco resolution opposing the City of Perth Bill:

Victoria Park (Council and MLA) Join Battle

Some of us have been concerned that the ALP Opposition has been leaving too many doors open to accepting an amended City of Perth Bill, with removal of clause 37 (requiring the Local Government Advisory Board to consider unspecified 'capital city' role and function for boundary change porposals for the City of Perth) being its single 'non-negotiable'.

In today's Southern Gazette, Victoria Park MLA, Ben Wyatt, in conjunction with Town of Victoria Park CEO, Antony Vuletta, appears to say the ALP will draw the line at (at the very least) requiring removal of both Clause 37 and Clause 29. 

Clause 29 is the clause that gives powers to the Executive Director Public Health - but only over Kings Park. It is the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill, also before the Parliament right now, that contains the same provision for all A-Class reserves, but the CoP Bill would, if passed, set a precedent.

Even if the City of Perth Bill is defeated, the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill is also a threat on the same basis.

Both Bills must be defeated before Kings Park and Burswood (not to mention Subiaco and Vincent) are safe.

Southern Gazette, 6th October 2015

UPDATE: Draft Hansard available.

The draft Hansard record of today's debate on the City of Perth Bill is in two parts and can be downloaded from http://parliament.wa.gov.au/Hansard/hansard.nsf/0/50f05f45f5b5442948257ec90036103a/$FILE/A39+S1+20150923+p5b-17a.pdf and http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Hansard/hansard.nsf/0/ffe04193eeb84ebe48257ec900361703/$FILE/A39+S1+20150923+p27d-38a.pdf

CoP Bill Debate Under Way

Wednesday 23 September saw the first day of debate on the City of Perth Bill in the Legislative Assembly. We'll post the Hansard here when it's available (draft should be available tonight).

Key points from the debate so far.

David Templeman (ALP, Mandurah. Opposition spokesperson on local government). Main issue is clause 37, which allows Government or City of Perth to claim Burswood. Serious questions about Kings Park and Executive Director Public Health and the proposed City of Perth Committee.

Ben Wyatt (ALP, Victoria Park). Slams Government for previous shambolic 'reform'. Argues that clause 37 is there to allow Premier to put Burswood into City of Perth despite demonstrated and overwhelming community opposition.

Dave Kelly (ALP, Bassendean). Premier wanted Vincent in City of Perth but only with gerrymander to ensure business domination. Vincent people objected. Describes clause 37 as 'legislative spaghetti', obscure, ambiguous, complicated, contentious and trojan horse to achieve Premier's will.

Terry Redman (Warren-Blackwood, Leader of the National Party). National Party is not against local government reform but will oppose this Bill on the grounds of forced amalgamation. [Note: This is the first time the Nationals have used the word 'oppose' as distinct from 'not support' - the latter being ambiguous as it could simply mean abstain.]

Mark McGowan (Leader, ALP, Rockingham). Really had a go at Barnett on the City of Perth Bill being the last vestige of local government reform fiasco. However, he stated that the Opposition's sticking point was clause 37

Vince Catania (National, North West Central) said that only the Nationals have a consistent policy on local government reform and this reflects the views of regional WA communities. The National Party will maintain that consistent policy. Local councils and communities deserve better from both Government and Opposition.

Debate was adjourned for the day with Rita Saffioti (ALP, West Swan) speaking. She will resume speaking when the debate is resumed - presumably tomorrow (Thursday 24th September).

In summary, the Nationals oppose the Bill, on the basis of the forced changes for residents of Subiaco. ALP opposes on the basis that Clause 37 opens the gate for Burswood to be moved to City of Perth and has some other substantial questions - but could support the Bill if Cl 37 removed and questions answered to its satisfaction.

If ALP and Nationals vote against and one Liberal crosses the floor, the votes will be tied 29 for and 29 against. Does the Speaker have a casting vote - and how would he use it? The Speaker should be aware of Denison's Rule.

Denison's rule is a convention, derived from the UK and the House of Commons, that the Speaker's casting vote should always be in favour of further debate or, where no further debate is possible, to vote in favour of the status quo. The principle behind the convention is that change should only occur if an actual majority is in favour of that change.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p09.pdf

Denison's rule is a guiding principle also in many non-parliamentary bodies that have neutral chairpersons.

What Our Capital City Really Needs

In an earlier post (http://capitalcitycitizenscommittee.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/why-city-of-perth-bill-is-fatally-flawed.html) we set out the reasons why all of us should be very concerned about the Government's attempt to foist an ill-thought-out and fatally-flawed City of Perth Bill on us in the name of creating a great capital city for WA.

We are aware that simply expressing our concerns will be taken by some as being negative, but in fact we support the creation of a more effective capital city for Western Australia. The current Bill, however, is so flawed that we believe it should be withdrawn or defeated and something better put in its place. 

As a positive contribution to this, the CCCC has developed a framework document for a capital city (attached), which we respectfully request that you consider when responding to the current Bill. The first part of our document reviews practice in all Australian state Capital Cities (no two cities are the same). The last page and a half sets out what we consider to be the essential principles and legislative requirements for a truly great capital city, including involvement of all stakeholders, openness and accountability, and establishment of a means for effective implementation of agreed policies, strategies and plans.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Why The City of Perth Bill Is Fatally Flawed

We have previously summarised our concerns about the City of Perth Bill (http://capitalcitycitizenscommittee.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/dangers-for-all-local-governments.html) but have refrained from setting out our full arguments until we had been able to talk with as many members of State Parliament as possible.

We also mailed and emailed our detailed documentation to MLAs over the past few weeks.

It now seems likely that the City of Perth Bill will be debated in the Legislative Assembly this week, so it is appropriate to bring our concerns to the attention of a wider audience.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Kings Park: Simpson Playing The Man, Not The Ball

Our concerns about the integrity of Kings Park, in the face of the City of Perth Bill, were published in a letter in the West Australian on Wednesday 26th August. Today (27th August), the West published a very strange response from Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, which provides not one skerrick of evidence, or even argument, to counter our contentions.

Our response to Simpson's diatribe is below - this has been sent to the West Australian, but it is by no means certain that it will print it, as it is generally averse to being the forum for protracted correspondence:

Dear Sir

I suppose, given the state of West Australian (and, indeed, Australian) politics, one should not be surprised that Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, chose to play the man not the ball in responding (Kings Park is safe, Letters, 27th August) to my letter of concern about the potential effect of the City of Perth Bill on Kings Park.

He provides not one piece of information to counter the arguments made in my letter (PCH may take scalpel to Kings Park, Letters, 26th August), but the vituperative nature of his response suggests we hit a raw nerve.

Mr Simpson expects us simply to accept his assurance that 'Kings Park is here to stay'. I was not in any way suggesting that it, or at least most of it, was not - but the City of Perth Bill does provide the means to erode the edges.

And what value does his 'assurance' have? Many of us remember his statement of 21st February 2013, just before the March 2013 election, that "the Liberal Party does not support forced amalgamations" [of local councils]. Fast forward a few months and he was leading the charge to do exactly that - force councils to amalgamate.

And he's still doing it! The City of Perth Bill would force 1800 Subiaco residents into the City of Perth, with which they have no community of interest whatsoever and which has repeatedly said it doesn't want residential areas.