At the City of Perth's meeting on Tuesday night, councillors voted against a motion by Councillor Raj Doshi to immediately dissolve the Policy, Governance and Legislation Committee, which was created just months ago in February. The motion would have returned all policy matters to full council for debate and decision.
Motion Highlights Concerns Over Decision-Making
Cr Doshi argued that abolishing the committee would ensure all elected members participate equally in policy formulation, strengthen transparency and collective accountability, reduce reliance on predetermined committee positions, and align policy decisions with the council's statutory responsibilities. She stated that the committee concentrated decision-making among a small group of elected members, reducing transparency.
The proposal came as the city faces intense scrutiny over governance and a clear divide between elected members and administration. The committee includes councillors Lisa Ma, David Goncalves, Liam Gobbert, Chris Patton, Viktor Ko, and Lord Mayor Bruce Reynolds, leaving only three councillors—Doshi, Catherine Lezer, and Adam Pacan—outside it.
Voting Patterns and Psychosocial Risks
Cr Doshi noted that with a six-to-three balance, decisions are effectively made before reaching full council. She cited a psychosocial governance risk assessment that identified segmented decision-making structures as contributing to reduced transparency and collaboration. She also pointed to voting patterns indicating entrenched alignment blocs.
Cr Goncalves defended the committee, stating it strengthens governance and does not reduce transparency. He emphasised that the committee has no delegated authority and all recommendations return to full council for final determination. He said, "A public and open committee meeting is not a back room. It is literally open to the public."
Administration's Previous Warnings
Cr Doshi referred to advice from the city administration when the committee was established in February, which warned that the committee would likely reduce opportunities for transparent deliberation and consultation among all elected members. The administration had cited short review timeframes—sometimes only 72 hours—as a risk to full council oversight and input.
Administration also noted that at the committee's inaugural meeting in April, amendments to the elected member entitlement policy were provided on the day, preventing staff from advising before endorsement. The administration estimated that abolishing the committee would save approximately $22,000 across the 2025-26 and 2026-27 financial years, about $3,000 per meeting.
Financial and Governance Implications
Cr Lezer supported the motion, arguing the committee represents poor value for ratepayers. She said, "$22,000 a year doesn't sound like a lot necessarily, but it is the equivalent of 12 average rates bills. We must be protecting ratepayers' funds."
Cr Doshi had attempted the same motion at the May 26 meeting but lacked a seconder, as councillors Lezer, Ma, and Goncalves were on leave. This second attempt also failed, with only Doshi and Lezer voting in favour, while Pacan voted against.
