No Taxation Without Representation?

Our letter in today's West Australian sets out a clear case for sacking the City of Perth Council and holding fresh elections for Council and Lord Mayor - along with an interesting 'turn the tables' letter from B Walton of Embleton.

A key issue that has been all but absent from discussion of the City of Perth Act is that the current Subiaco electors who will be forcibly transferred to City of Perth on July 1st will be without representation until October 2017 - and even then will only have the chance to vote for half the council and not for the Lord Mayor, who is not due for re-election until 2019.

No matter that some City of Perth councillors will do their best to engage with the ex-Subiaco community, the fact is that they have not been elected by those people.

At the same time, the City of Perth will expect those people to pay rates and rubbish charges to support a council budget they have had no part in determining.

This smacks of 'taxation without representation' which was one of the major causes of the American Revolution. We could hardly blame those soon-to-be-former Subiaco ratepayers if they were to refuse to pay taxes levied on this undemocratic basis.

City of Perth Council is Dysfunctional and Should be Sacked

I doubt that anyone in Perth is unaware of the ongoing saga of Perth Lord Mayor, Lisa Scaffidi, and her travel rorts, including damning reports from both the Crime and Corruption Commission and most recently from the Local Government Department (http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/WebCMS/WebCMS.nsf/resources/file-perth-inquiry-report/$file/Perth%20Inquiry%20Report.pdf) which recommended as follows:

3. Conclusion and recommendation 

37. The findings which relate to possible minor breaches, in relation to accepting prohibited gifts and failing to disclose interests affecting impartiality, occurred in excess of two years prior and therefore, are outside the statute of limitations. Disciplinary action cannot be taken in respect of those matters.

38. In light of the remaining findings, the authorised persons recommend that consideration be given to commencing disciplinary action against Mayor Scaffidi in relation to the allegations contained in this report under the heading “Schedule of Alleged Breaches’. Those allegations mirror the findings of the authorised persons. However, since the State Administrative Tribunal must independently determine whether any serious breaches have occurred, the findings in this report would amount only to allegations in the event disciplinary proceedings were commenced. 

Scaffidi's intransigence in response to these findings prompted Deputy Lord Mayor, James Limnios, to threaten a motion of no-confidence in the Lord Mayor, but he was pre-empted this evening by Cr Janet Davidson successfully moving a motion of no-confidence in the Deputy Lord Mayor himself. According to West Australian reporter Kate Emery on Twitter (https://twitter.com/kirovkate?lang=en) Cr Limnios has apparently declared that he will not step down as Deputy Lord Mayor. According to Kate Emery, Crs Reece Harley, Jemma Green and Lily Chen opposed the no-confidence motion (as did Limnios). The others were in favour.

Any fair-minded observer would have to conclude that the City of Perth Council, far from being the elite capital city council promoted by Barnett and Simpson during the passage of the City of Perth Act, is dysfunctional and should be sacked and new elections should be held as soon as possible, which would give a voice to those electors forcibly transferred against their will from the City of Subiaco.

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.

Ironic Recognition

Congratulations to Cecilia Brooke for the award of the Premier's Australia Day Active Citizenship Award for a person over 25 years for the City of South Perth.

There's a lot more to the citation than her tireless work to prevent the forced amalgamation of South Perth and Victoria Park (and now to protect Kings Park and the residents of Subiaco against the City of Perth Bill), but many of us beyond South Perth will be forever thankful to Cecilia for her role in getting Colin Barnett to "fly the white flag" and back down from his forced local government amalgamations.

I wonder if Barnett gets the irony - we hope there's more to come.

Subi Pulls No Punches - But We Should ALL Be Concerned

The City of Subiaco was a key player in keeping the Barnett Government something approaching honest in the initial forced local government amalgamation fiasco. Now it is being given payback in the City of Perth Bill, after Nedlands and Victoria Park objections to the original Bill were accommodated.

There has been no justification presented for forcing the Subiaco 3000 into the City of Perth and, as we have previously noted here (http://capitalcitycitizenscommittee.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/the-forgotten-17000.html), the remaining 17,000 Subiaco residents will be forced to pay a hefty price for the Premier's arrogance and vindictiveness.

Time for all who care about community to stand up and be counted. There is still time to write to your Upper House MPs (list, with email addresses, at http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/parliament/memblist.nsf/WebCurrMembElectorate?OpenView&Start=1&Count=1000&Expand=1#1) telling them you object to the treatment of Subiaco residents, whether the 3000 being forced into the City of Perth or the 17,000 who will be forced to pay for it.

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/city-of-perth-scandal-subiaco-mayor-takes-swipe-at-controversial-council-20160122-gmbs8z.html

The Forgotten 17,000

The 3000 residents of Subiaco who would be forcibly transferred to the City of Perth under the City of Perth Bill have received scandalously little attention during the parliamentary debate on the City of Perth Bill. The focus has almost entirely been on the University of Western Australia, the QEII Medical Centre and the Perth Children's Hospital. The Subiaco 3000 are, apparently, simply collateral damage.

To the extent they have been mentioned, it has been on the basis that those residents would have their rates reduced by 30% to the City of Perth residential rate level - which conveniently ignores the fact that the City of Perth currently subsidises residential rates and has expressed its intention to reduce or remove this subsidy.

http://www.perth.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/City%20of%20Perth%20Annual%20Budget%202014-2015.pdf

The remaining 17,000 residents of Subiaco have not been scandalously ignored - they have been totally ignored by our elected representatives in Parliament.

Now, the City of Subiaco has exposed the effects on these hitherto invisible people. In an item for discussion at the Subiaco Council Meeting on 19th January (http://www.subiaco.wa.gov.au/getattachment/b4fae429-af3e-4f96-920e-259cd9b986a0/OCM-19-January-2016 - see item at foot of this post), the revenue loss and (to be fair and balanced) the corresponding reductions in costs have been identified. The net result is an increase in rates of 7% over and above what would be necessary for other reasons - or a reduction in services.

All this simply for the aggrandisement of the City of Perth and at the sole instigation of the Premier, Colin Barnett - at a time when he is critical of local governments for rate rises and threatening rate capping.

There is a well-known principle in economics (the 'Pareto principle') that something is worth doing if those who benefit can potentially compensate those who lose and still be better off (in sort, that the benefits exceed the costs) - but this is hotly disputed where the gainers do not actually compensate the losers.

In this case, the State Government could include compensation provisions for Subiaco ratepayers and residents in the City of Perth - but I'm not holding my breath for this to happen. Not only is Colin Barnett's track record on equity issues not encouraging, but there has been absolutely no evidence of benefits produced - and it is therefore likely that the gainers could not, even potentially, compensate the losers.

All makes the City of Perth Bill sound like like very bad public policy - but we already knew that.

 

Another Bad Week for Marmion and McGowan

Hot on the heels of 5th November, the Subiaco Post has followed up with letters (including one based on the previous post on this blog) and a report of a 'No-Confidence-in-Bill-Marmion" motion passed unanimously by the City of Subiaco Annual Meeting of electors.

Good to see one media organisation willing to report things as they are.

Bad Week for Marmion and McGowan

Three letters in the Subiaco Post of 5th December ('Independent MP for Nedlands?', 'Opposition has changed its tune on Dadour poll' and ' Who will keep the bastards honest?') raised, in the context of the City of Perth Bill, the issue of integrity in politics.

Now there are some who would say that say that the very phrase 'integrity in politics' is an oxymoron, but that need not be the case - witness the principled and consistent stands taken by the Nationals and by Liberal MLA, Rob Johnson, in opposing the City of Perth Bill.

As Jeremy Mowe points out, Nedlands MLA, Bill Marmion, has been consistent - but only in being unwilling to represent the interests of a substantial proportion of his electors. Marmion's only apparent principle appears to have been to elevate his status and salary as Cabinet Minister over the values of representative democracy.

Nedlands electors may be used to this, but many would have had more (if misplaced) faith in the ALP keeping its word.

True, the ALP might have removed some of the more egregious aspects of the City of Perth Bill, but it remains one of the poorest pieces of legislation I have seen after a career of 45 years in public policy. 

The Bill still forces 3000 residents of Subiaco into the City of Perth with no say in what happens. No matter how Mark McGowan might grandstand about 'saving Burswood', the fact remains that he has totally ignored the western land and revenue grab and the effect it will have on the rest of Subiaco.

The Bill still gives additional powers to the unelected Executive Director, Public Health, that, despite the denials of Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, threaten Kings Park, especially through expansion of hospital and medical-related facilities from QEII and Perth Children's Hospital.

The Bill would create a City of Perth Committee, with poorly-specified role and function, that, according to Tony Simpson wouldn't even have to keep minutes of meetings, let alone be accountable to either Parliament or the Perth City Council.

It is all the more distressing for residents of Subiaco and those who care about Kings Park that the Opposition would almost certainly have had the numbers to defeat the Bill at an early stage in the Legislative Assembly. With the Nationals and Rob Johnson voting against, it would only have required one more Liberal to cross the floor for the Bill to be defeated. I am reliably informed that there was at least one more willing to do so had the ALP not signalled its capitulation to Barnett. 

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

Labor Shafts The Subiaco 3000

In the previous local government so-called reform process, Labor was left at the post and only started to make up some ground when it became clear that community opposition was gathering such momentum that it might, against all the odds, actually succeed.

With the City of Perth Bill, after appearing to promise so much, Labor went to water and abandoned the residents of Subiaco's south ward when the numbers were there to defeat the Bill outright.

And as for Labor's agreeing to broaden the scope of the Bill to allow for transparency and accountability requirements for all local governments, the best that can be said for that is that it was a misuse of parliamentary process to do it so late, without consultation and via a Bill that otherwise did not directly affect other local governments except Subiaco and Nedlands.

Thanks to the Nationals and to Rob Johnson for having, and sticking to, principles. And thanks to Chris Tallentire (ALP, Gosnells), who at least spoke up for the Subiaco 3000 even if he couldn't find it in himself to vote against the party line. See how your local member voted (foot of this post - two Nationals, Terry Redman and Brendan Grylls were absent but we know they would have voted against the Bill) and let them know if you are disgusted by the way the Subiaco residents have been treated simply to make life a little easier for the University of WA (see Mark McGowan's comment in the first part (columns 4 and 5) of the Post article below).

I must admit, though, that I did like Ben Wyatt's characterisation of the Bill's passing the Legislative Assembly as "The Premier has snatched a committee from the jaws of defeat", for there is very little else of substance in the Bill apart from the forced relocation of the Subiaco 3000. Even with little substance, however, it would still be bad law if passed by the Legislative Council.

Needless to say, the mainstream media (ABC and the West Australian) homed in on the accountability aspect and almost entirely ignored the fundamental issues in the City of Perth Bill. As too often has been the case over the past couple of years, notwithstanding some important contributions from the ABC, it was left to the Post to provide a more rounded coverage.

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.

Nationals Stick To Principles - But Has ALP Done A Deal With The Devil?

It would be unusual for a Government Bill to be defeated at the Second Reading Stage, but that could have happened to the City of Perth Bill yesterday in the Legislative Assembly. That only the Nationals voted against further consideration of the Bill raises suspicions that the Labor Opposition has done a deal with the Barnett Government (http://capitalcitycitizenscommittee.blogspot.com.au/2015/11/has-alp-done-deal-with-devil.html).

Anyway, we congratulate Terry Redman and the Nationals for sticking to their principles to oppose forced amalgamations.

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

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