Perth faces a turbulent chapter as the acting City of Perth CEO abruptly steps down amidst a heated dispute over a controversial workplace culture review initiated by the new Lord Mayor. This internal unrest underscores deeper conflicts within the city’s local government, raising questions about transparency, legality, and governance practices. And this is the part most people miss—the controversy isn't just about the review itself, but about how decisions are made and whether proper procedures are followed.
The turmoil ignited when Bruce Reynolds, who assumed the role of Lord Mayor in October, announced his plan to commission an independent assessment of workplace culture, allocating a hefty $125,000 from taxpayer funds. Shockingly, he gave the council a mere six minutes’ notice before informing councillors of this decision last week. Such brief notice raises eyebrows about transparency and respect for council procedures.
In a strongly worded statement posted overnight on the council’s official website, the outgoing acting CEO, Peta Mabbs, criticized the process as an irresponsible use of public money. She argued that the move was not only unlawful—contradicting multiple state and local regulations—but also unsupported by any prior evidence of workplace issues. Interestingly, during a review of her own performance in August and in setting her strategic focus for the upcoming year, no concerns about workplace culture ever emerged.
So, how did things escalate to this point?
It started during the council’s meeting on November 18, where a resolution was passed to establish a committee dedicated to examining potential issues within the council's administration. The plan was to hire Mills Oakley, a reputable law firm, to conduct a thorough review at the cost of over $125,000. However, crucially, councillors were not allowed to debate or ask questions about this decision—an omission that alarmed many members. Cr Catherine Lezer, one of the dissenting voices, publicly announced her intent to oppose the decision and seek its revocation at the next council meeting.
Despite these objections, the initial decision was secretly upheld during a last-minute special meeting called by the Lord Mayor. This meeting was held behind closed doors and did not include the three councillors who opposed the review, raising concerns about transparency and procedural fairness.
The following day, Mayor Reynolds publicly championed the review as a vital 'health check' for the organization, denying any sinister motives. He emphasized that a workplace committee is essential for any organization’s health, especially one as significant as Perth’s city administration, and insisted it was not about ousting current staff but about improving the city.
Nevertheless, Ms Mabbs publicly stated hours after her resignation was announced that she had received no rationale from the Lord Mayor or other councillors justifying the urgent need for such a broad review. Instead, she revealed that complaints had been made about certain councillors’ behavior, highlighting issues concerning the psychosocial well-being and safety of both elected members and staff who work closely with them. By 2025, a total of ten complaints concerning councillors' conduct had been filed by staff and elected officials.
The sudden resignation of Ms Mabbs, announced on Wednesday afternoon, came without any official explanation. She had been acting on behalf of CEO Michelle Reynolds, who was on pre-approved leave since November 14. Besides her role as acting CEO, Ms Mabbs serves as the City of Perth’s executive director of governance and strategy, bringing significant experience—including six years at the Corruption and Crime Commission, including a tenure as CEO.
Her report on the situation was based on legal advice from Neil Douglas, a respected lawyer from McLeods law firm known for handling inquiries into local governments and acting as an CCC commissioner.
Adding to the controversy, on Thursday evening, Local Government Minister Hannah Beazley expressed serious concern about the unfolding events. She indicated she's escalated her concerns to the department to seek clarity on what transpired and what actions are needed moving forward. Minister Beazley emphasized her willingness to intervene decisively when governance issues arise and highlighted her track record of taking action under similar circumstances.
This situation is set to be discussed further during an upcoming councillor briefing session scheduled for Tuesday. The core question remains: should local governments have the autonomy to handle internal matters without undue interference, or does this episode expose deeper systemic issues that could undermine public trust? Do you think the mayor’s push for the review was driven by sincere concerns, or was it a move motivated by internal power struggles? Share your thoughts and opinions in the comments—this controversy invites a broader debate on governance, transparency, and accountability in our local institutions.
