PERTH lord mayor Bruce Reynolds has backed down to prevent all-out war with his administration over a controversial review of the City’s culture. 

At Tuesday’s agenda briefing, Mr Reynolds said he would support a revocation motion at next week’s full council meeting,  a major retreat after previously pushing the review through as urgent business in November.

But he hasn’t completely surrendered, saying he would ask  recently appointed local government inspector Tony Brown to take carriage of the review as a “first priority”.

“He will have full statutory powers and complete independence to examine workplace culture, WHS, governance and organisation health, without fear or favour,” Mr Reynolds said.

“The intention behind the workplace culture review was simple and I believe, sound: To provide a safe, independent avenue for staff to meet our WHS obligations and to ensure transparency and continuous improvement at city of Perth. And I stand by that intent.”

Mr Reynolds said he had acted “in good faith, within the law” and the review had been prompted by a duty of care to staff, citing former staff raising “serious concerns” about the City’s culture, public reviews and “psychosocial safety hazards as further triggers.

 “Under our WHS obligations when credible risks are raised, there is a duty to act promptly, not to sit on our hands.”

Mr Reynolds has been grilled over his decision to directly contact lawyers Mills Oakley, which led them to be appointed to carry out the review, but he insisted he had followed procurement rules and had no professional or personal links with the company.

“I contacted Mills Oakley to ask whether they could conduct a workplace culture review and to obtain an indicative fee estimate that was preliminary scope. Preliminary scoping, nothing more,” he said.

“The city’s purchasing policy indicates a clear exemption for legal services, allowing the city to directly engage a WALGA pre-qualified law firm without going to full tender. Mills Oakley are a WALGA preferred supplier.”

Noise

But he acknowledged the situation had changed.

“First, the mechanism of the November 18 motion has become the subject of competing legal commentary, public dispute and media noise,” he said. 

“If the city is to be seen to be locked in an open warfare between its governing body and its administration, the state can not only act, but it could be pressure to act.”

“The question tonight is not, were we wrong to care about culture and staff being — no, we were right. But the real question is, what is the best vehicle right now to achieve the same outcome without tipping the city into instability?

“To the community and to the media, we are choosing a circuit breaker,” he said about Mr Brown’s potential review.

“This is not about personalities or factional politics. It’s about ensuring the city of Perth is safe, respectful, high performing organisation that you can trust.”

The chamber was packed with residents who attended to oppose the initial review and support the revocation motion. 

Councillor Catherine Lezer’s husband Kevin McIsaac earlier told the Chook he’d been watching what was happening at the council for months and held his tongue, but the botched cultural review had been too much.

“You went on a platform of transparency, but fell at the first hurdle,” he then told Mr Reynolds during a deputation at the meeting, describing the review as a “divisive and opaque fishing expedition”.

Cr Lezer had flagged a revocation motion to overturn the decision to mount a review, but was outmanoeuvred by the mayor who called a quick-fire meeting to raise his own revocation motion which he then voted down with the aim of pushing the review ahead without any further debate.

by STEVE GRANT