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

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.

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.

WA Governor Wants To Protect Our Parks and Reserves, Too

A couple of days ago, we posted a piece on this blog about the threat to Kings Park posed by its absorption into the City of Perth and, more insidiously, the granting of the powers of a local government to the Executive Director, Public Health, an unelected official  http://capitalcitycitizenscommittee.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/city-of-perth-bill-dangers-to-kings-park.html.

Serendipitously, WA Governor, Kerry Sanderson, has come out publicly in support of stronger protection for our national parks and reserves. As Ms Sanderson says:

"We can all play a part in the stewardship of our national parks and conservation areas. I encourage people to take the opportunity to become actively involved, enjoy our natural heritage and pass on this appreciation to future generations."

The Governor is showing true leadership for the community here - in contrast to the WA Government, which, through its City of Perth Bill, seeks to facilitate development in Kings Park through the office of an unelected official.

I am sure that the Governor did not, in her exhortation, specifically mean a call to political action, but if we are to pass on the ability to appreciate Kings Park in all its glory to future generations (to echo Kerry Sanderson's words), political action seems to be what it will take.

The Capital City Citizens' Committee is lobbying hard for recognition that the current City of Perth Bill is fatally-flawed and a missed opportunity to create a great capital city for Western Australia. BUT WE NEED YOUR HELP.

Write, email, phone or lobby your local Member of the Legislative Assembly and Members of the Legislative Council. You can find their names and contact details at http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/parliament/memblist.nsf/WebCurrMembElectorate Just type the name of your suburb or your postcode into the 'search' box and click on the 'Search' button.

Feel free to use information on this blog to help you make the case.

City of Perth Bill: Dangers to Kings Park

The City of Perth Bill was introduced into Parliament on 21^st May 2015. Although the Bill has moved up to No 5 on the Notice Paper, the full debate has not yet taken place, making it likely to happen in the September sitting of the Legislative Assembly (starting 8th September).

Although the Bill is notionally about the City of Perth, it is important to all West Australians, not simply to those who are residents, ratepayers or business operators in the City of Perth. 

We all have an interest in and are affected by our capital city.

There is one aspect of the Bill that we believe is of special concern to all who care about Kings Park. That is the incorporation of Kings Park within the City of Perth boundaries (Clause 17) and the special powers given to the Executive Director of Public Health (Clauses 28 and 29). No reason for either of these has been provided, either in the Bill or in the Explanatory Memorandum.

The Executive Director, Public Health, would, "for the purposes of protecting, promoting or improving public health", be given “all the powers and authority of a local government”, including the “power to make and enforce local laws under the Local Government Act, 1995”. This, by definition, includes the power to approve development to aid 'public health'.

The definition of ‘public health’ in the Bill is so vague (see right) that it could be construed to cover provision for hospital and associated facilities and services, which, given the constrained sites on which the QEII Medical Centre and the new Children’s Hospital are situated, could cover development of the western edge of Kings Park - not only for direct hospital purposes but for car parking, ancillary medical services, formal recreation space for the hospital (indeed, this has already been mooted and a pedestrian bridge over Winthrop Avenue proposed) and who knows what else.

We note, also, that an identical provision, but applying to all A-class reserves, is included in the Local Government Legislation (Amendment) Bill, which is also before the Legislative Assembly. 

If Kings Park is not to be endangered in this way, this provision must be removed not only from the City of Perth Bill (or, preferably, the Bill to be defeated) but also from the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill.