Devil. Detail. City of Perth Bill

The City of Perth Bill is on the Legislative Assembly Notice Paper to be introduced today.

The Bill itself can be found at http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Parliament/Bills.nsf/1A82838DDD41FB0E48257E4B002AB76C/$File/Bill135-1.pdf.

As I have said previously, the devil is in the detail - and the limited information available from the Notice Paper does nothing to lessen my concerns. Nor does reading the Bill help very much.

In addition to matters announced by the Premier yesterday, the Bill will:

- repeal the City of Perth Restructuring Act 1993

- make consequential and other amendments to the Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority Act 1998, the Local Government Act 1960 Part VIA and the Local Government Act 1995

The City of Perth Restructuring Act, 1993, was the legislation that established the Towns of Vincent, Victoria Park and Cambridge - so what are implications of repealing it? In the absence of provisions in the City of Perth Bill for the continuation of those Local Governments, does this potentially disestablish them? Or am I jumping at shadows?

'Consequential and other amendments to the Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority Act 1998' has me really concerned for the future of Kings Park. If the bringing of Kings Park within the City of Perth boundaries was no more than a matter of its location, I doubt there would be any need to amend the BGPA Act. So what else (especially as 'other amendments') is going on here.

Section 30 of the City of Perth Bill states that 'no local law (presumably - but not specified - of the City of Perth) applies to or in respect of King’s Park', but local governments do not only exercise their functions and powers through local laws. So does the Bill give City of Perth 'open slather' in other respects?

With regard to amendments to the Local Government Act, there is no longer a Local Government Act, 1960, but Part VIA of that Act was continued by Clause 16 of Schedule 9.3 of the 1995 Act, which is surely what should be amended, not the original provision in the now-defunct 1960 Act - this is what the Bill does, but not as stated in the Notice Paper. The reference to Part VIA appears to relate to superannuation provisions for City of Perth.

But what, one wonders, are the 'consequential and other amendments … to the Local Government Act 1995' and the 'related matters' provided for.

And how on earth can a Bill that the Parliament is being asked to make an informed decision on include a map of new boundaries for the City of Perth that is labelled 'Indicative Only'. This especially worrying in the light of Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson's comment reported in this morning's West Australian that Burswood "could be reviewed, with the Government believing it belonged in the capital city'. 

Moreover, section 37 of the City of Perth Bill requires the Local Government Advisory Board to deal differently with the City of Perth. It reads: "In carrying out a formal inquiry into a proposal that directly 5 affects the district of Perth, the Advisory Board is also to 6 have regard to the special significance of the role and 7 responsibilities of the City of Perth that flow from Perth 8 being the capital of Western Australia." 

So a future proposal (perhaps from the City of Perth) to bring Burswood within the City of Perth would be assessed differently from the way the LGAB recently did.

Residents and Ratepayers of Victoria Park beware.

Watch this space.