Today, we are releasing our formal responses to the City of Perth’s answers to public questions tabled at the Council Meeting on 25 March 2025. Our review reveals a consistent pattern of obfuscation, misinformation, and policy non-compliance by the City in its handling of major public artworks.

The City has failed to:

• Follow its own Public Art Policy CP4.8 in the acquisition and placement of the mass-produced Boonji Spaceman sculpture;
• Consult advisory groups or undertake required cultural engagement, particularly with Whadjuk Noongar representatives;
• Provide transparency on procurement processes, budget reserve transfers, or artwork relocation costs;
• Provide transparency on procurement processes, the quotation from Gullotti Galleries or payment to the gallery and artist;
• Uphold best-practice standards in the conservation, significance assessment, or deaccessioning of key local artworks.

 In multiple instances, the City has made misleading claims or withheld information that would normally be disclosed under principles of good governance. These failures are not isolated but part of a broader trend of sidelining expert advice and prioritising political optics over cultural integrity and community-led decision making.

We urge the City of Perth to release all relevant documentation, reinstate proper governance processes, and genuinely engage with cultural stakeholders before further damage is done to Perth’s public art legacy.

Our responses follow for public and media scrutiny.

#savethekebab

.................

Council Meeting 25 March 2025

Responses to the Administration’s Answers

Questions 1 to 5 of 24

Q1 Ore Obelisk and Public Art Removal
Were the three options for the Ore Obelisk — conservation, relocation, or decommissioning — presented to Council as promised in early 2022?

A1 A report for Council has not been prepared on this matter and the artwork has not been deaccessioned.

R1 The answer is no. Despite a commitment in early 2022 to present options to Council, the Administration has not delivered a report. Best practice in public art management requires transparent governance, with key decisions—especially those involving high-value or culturally significant works—subject to Council oversight and advisory consultation. The decision to remove the artwork appears to have been made administratively in 2021, without the involvement of Council or relevant advisory groups.

Q2 Ore Obelisk and Public Art Removal
Were relevant stakeholders and the community consulted on the fate of the Ore Obelisk before its removal?

A2 The removal was based on public safety risks identified through engineering reports following a rock fall in 2020. Feedback from stakeholders will inform future decisions on the artwork.

R2 The answer is partially yes. Consultation with the artist’s family did occur, but only after removal. The City’s correspondence indicates that the CEO authorised deinstallation, and that stakeholder feedback would be considered in future—not before removal. Best practice would have involved early consultation with key advisory groups (such as the Culture and Arts Advisory Group and Elders Advisory Group) before actioning removal, particularly given the cultural and historical significance of the piece.

Q3 Ore Obelisk and Public Art Removal
Was a significance assessment undertaken before its removal?

A3 The artwork’s significance was never in question and it remains accessioned in the City’s collection. Removal was for safety reasons.

R3 The answer is no. While the City states the artwork’s significance “was never in question,” this does not equate to conducting a formal significance assessment as recommended under national best practice guidelines (e.g., Significance 2.0 by Collections Council of Australia). A formal assessment could have helped weigh significance against the risk and inform options such as conservation or sympathetic relocation. Does the City of Perth understand what a Significance Assessment is? 

Q4 Ore Obelisk and Public Art Removal
Was a conservation plan developed?

A4 No plan was created at time of commissioning (1971), but maintenance and inspections have been conducted since.

R4 The answer is no. Although engineering reports informed reactive maintenance, the absence of a conservation management plan is a gap in long-term collection care. Such a plan is standard best practice for artworks of significance and would have guided decisions more holistically, balancing safety, integrity, and future potential reuse or restoration.

Q5 Ore Obelisk and Public Art Removal
What is the City’s current plan and timeline for the artwork, which has been in storage for four years?

A5 Options are being developed, informed by engineering assessments.

R5 The answer is vague. After four years in storage, and with prior assessments already completed, it is concerning that no timeline or defined plan has been shared publicly. Best practice involves clear timeframes, public updates, and transparent governance. The current ambiguity raises questions about the City’s commitment to resolution.

Questions 6 to follow tomorrow.