Are Lord Mayor and CoP Worthy To Be Our Capital City?

In a previous post (http://capitalcitycitizenscommittee.blogspot.com.au/2016/03/post-asks-difficult-questions-no-one.html) we remarked upon the apparent lack of interest by the media in the creation of our Capital City under the Capital City Act.

However, the Lord Mayor's recent behaviour (http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/lisa-scaffidi-saga-opposition-wants-investigation-into-perth-lord-mayor-travel-20160316-gnk87w.html) has received attention - and deservedly so.

Lisa Scaffidi just doesn't get it when it comes to openness and accountability.

She admits there are more trips she hasn't declared - which raises the question of why she apparently didn't mention these to the CCC. She attempts to justify some of them by saying that other Lord Mayors went as well - but who else went is not the issue. The issue is that they were paid for by a third party and therefore should be declared lest they be seen to potentially have influenced the Lord Mayor in the performance of her duties.

Shadow Local Government Minister, David Templeman is quite right in saying that the Barnett Government is taking too long to release the inquiry report, that the standing of the Lord Mayor was being sullied by speculation and that it "erodes the status and puts a dark cloud over the City of Perth in total".

What a pity, then, that Mr Templeman and the ALP didn't delay the passage of the City of Perth Bill through the Parliament so that these matters could be resolved and we could be sure the City of Perth was worthy of its new exalted status before the Bill became law.

The ALP voted against referring the City of Perth Bill to a committee of the Legislative Council, where such matters could have been investigated.

And if such a move had failed (as would have been likely, given that the Nationals also opposed it), the ALP should have had the courage to remove its Lower House support for the Bill and vote against it - which, given that the Nationals, the Greens and Rick Mazza voted against would have defeated the Bill.

As it is, we have legislation for the City of Perth to be WA's Capital City precisely at the time that its Lord Mayor and, by implication, the whole Council, is under a very large cloud.

Post Asks The Difficult Questions - No One Else Interested, It Seems

The Subiaco Post has been the only newspaper to give consistent and comprehensive coverage to the City of Perth Bill, now Act.

For all the hype (from Barnett, Simpson and Scaffidi) about the importance of the City of Perth Act (https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/Barnett/2016/02/Capital-city-Act-passed-by-Parliament.aspx; http://www.perth.wa.gov.au/newsroom/featured-news/city-perth-bill-passes-parliament), I have been unable to find a single word about it in the West Australian since it passed the Parliament.

So much for "a landmark moment for the State" (Colin Barnett) and "the pathway for Perth to become an economic powerhouse" (Scaffidi).

The Post also questions how well ALP Leader, Mark McGowan (and, by implication, his local government spokesman, David Templeman) actually understood key elements of the Bill they were helping pass through Parliament.

Subiaco Post, 5th March 2016. Click to Enlarge

The CCCC believes that McGowan had no good reason for being unaware of the threat to Kings Park, given the amount of correspondence and communication we have had with him, with his Local Government Spokesman, David Templeman, and indeed with all Members of the WA Parliament.

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.

Simple, Really

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 - 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

City of Perth Bill Yo-Yo: Mismanagement or Panic?

One minute the City of Perth Bill is oh-so-important. The next, it drops down below all these:
1. Terrorism (Extraordinary Powers) Amendment Bill 2015 (Minister for Police) (No. 150, 2r. – 24/9/15) Second reading. Adjourned debate (Mr D.A. Templeman).
2. Sentencing Amendment Bill 2014 (Minister for Police) (LC No. 88, 2r. – 24/2/15) Second reading. Adjourned debate (Leader of the House).
3. Perth Market (Disposal) Bill 2015 (Treasurer) (No. 149, 2r. – 23/9/15) Second reading. Adjourned debate (Mr D.A. Templeman).
4. Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 (Minister for Regional Development) (LC No. 141 , 2r. – 15/10/15) Second reading. Adjourned debate (Mr D.A. Templeman).
5. Graffiti Vandalism Bill 2015 (Minister for Police) (No. 147, 2r. – 15/9/15) To be read a third time.

No 3, the Perth Market (Disposal) Bill is all about flogging off an asset to try to disguise this Government's financial mismanagement - enough said.

To be fair, No 5, the Graffiti Vandalism Bill, is at the usually formal third reading stage, having been through all the detailed second reading debate and consideration in detail, but overall the yo-yoing of the City of Perth Bill up and down the Notice Paper smacks of either mismanagement of the Parliament's time or panic.

Quite likely, of course, that having already fragmented the second reading debate over three separate sessions, the Government is hoping that further delay will defuse the opposition, especially in its own ranks.

Dream on, Col!

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge