We're releasing our formal responses to the City of Perth’s answers to public questions put to the Council at the 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

Question 7 to 14 of 24

Q7 Boonji Spaceman Installation
Why did the cost increase from $50,000 to $171,000?

A7 Council endorsed a $250,000 budget in June 2024 to cover acquisition, installation, and transport.

R7 While the City acknowledges the budget increased to $250,000, it provides no 
explanation for the original $50,000 quote or how costs tripled. This raises serious concerns about the transparency and rigour of the procurement process.

To maintain public trust, the City must provide:

• A clear breakdown of costs, including artist fees, international shipping, insurance, customs, storage, installation, and site preparation.
• An explanation for the discrepancy between the initial and final figures.
• Disclosure of contractual arrangements — was this a direct acquisition, was an open tender conducted, or was a procurement exemption granted?
• Clarification on whether the artist or commercial galleries financially benefited from this transaction.

Without this detail, the City's handling of the Boonji Spaceman acquisition 
appears financially reckless and non-compliant with best practice, especially when 
compared to the treatment of existing local artworks.

Q8 Boonji Spaceman Installation
Why is the City funding the artist’s travel, accommodation, and event linked to a private exhibition?

A8 The City is not funding any travel, accommodation or exhibition-related events.

R8 This answer is misleading and factually inaccurate.

According to the City’s own documentation (OCM 25 June 2024), the $171,580 quote received from Gullotti Galleries includes:
- Artist’s engineer costs, specifically covering “sculpture preparation and travel and 
accommodation”;
- An unveiling event, described as an “official handover to the City of Perth, requested by the artist”;
- Timing that aligns explicitly with a commercial exhibition at Gullotti Galleries.

This undermines the City’s assertion that no public money is funding travel, 
accommodation, or an event linked to the artist’s private exhibition. In reality, ratepayer funds are directly subsidising a commercial gallery's launch strategy, while the City characterises the sculpture as a donation.

This lack of transparency and the misleading nature of the public response indicate a deliberate effort to obscure the true financial relationship — a clear breach of public accountability and good governance. The City must release the full cost breakdown and contractual terms immediately.

Q9 Boonji Spaceman Installation
Was the installation timed to coincide with Brendan Murphy’s private exhibition?

A9 Installation was based on freight and scheduling logistics.

R9 This response is disingenuous and omits critical context.

Council documents from the 25 June 2024 meeting clearly state that Gullotti Galleries requested the sculpture be installed by August 2024 to coincide with an exhibition of Brendan Murphy’s work in Cottesloe. This timeline was not incidental, but a condition explicitly tied to the “gift” of the sculpture.

The installation is explicitly timed to enhance the visibility and prestige of a commercial exhibition, effectively using public infrastructure and ratepayer funds to bolster the private promotion of the artist and his gallery.

To suggest that logistics alone dictated the timing is misleading. It masks the commercial interests embedded in the transaction, and obscures the true nature of the City’s partnership with Gullotti Galleries.

At minimum, this should have triggered a conflict-of-interest review and external probity oversight — neither of which appears to have occurred.

Q10 Boonji Spaceman Installation
What is the rationale for placing it at Stirling Gardens, and how does it align with policy and the Gardens’ Heritage Management Plan?

A10 A Heritage Impact Assessment deemed the temporary installation low-impact.

R10 The City’s response avoids the core question: Why Stirling Gardens? What makes this site appropriate for a seven-metre, mass-produced sculpture with no cultural, historical, or environmental relationship to it?

Stirling Gardens is a heritage-listed, botanically significant, and culturally sensitive site on Whadjuk Noongar land. The Boonji Spaceman — a futuristic astronaut sculpture — bears no thematic or historical connection to the gardens, its surroundings, or the community it serves. This directly contradicts CP4.8’s requirement that public art be responsive to site context and contribute meaningfully to place.

While the City references a Heritage Impact Assessment, this pertains only to structural and spatial impact, not cultural appropriateness or policy alignment. The absence of consultation with the Whadjuk Aboriginal Corporation or Elders Advisory Group is a serious omission.

The rationale appears driven not by public interest or cultural relevance, but by convenience and proximity to Council House to reinforce former Lord Mayor Basil Zempilas’s “City of Light” branding agenda. This decision reflects personal political optics rather than sound public art governance or community-led placemaking.

Q11 Boonji Spaceman Installation
Was the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH) consulted, and what was their feedback?

A11 Yes. The Heritage Council supported the temporary installation, and DPLH confirmed it meets the definition of public work.

R11 The answer is adequate. Consultation with DPLH and the Heritage Council aligns with statutory obligations. However, while the City asserts that the Heritage Council supported the temporary installation, the transparency of this approval process is questionable. Public records do not clearly indicate whether the Heritage Council's decision was unanimous or divided, leaving the extent of their endorsement uncertain.
Additionally, the lack of broader community consultation, particularly with local Indigenous groups and cultural stakeholders, further undermines the legitimacy and cultural sensitivity of the installation.

The City's failure to disclose detailed deliberations and community engagement efforts reflects a pattern of opacity in the Boonji Spaceman project.

Q12 Boonji Spaceman Installation
Why pursue a temporary site knowing relocation will incur costs?

A12 The 12-month Stirling Gardens display connects to the “City of Light” theme; a long-term location (e.g. Elizabeth Quay) is being investigated.

R12 The City has committed up to $250,000 in ratepayer funds to install an oversized, mass-produced sculpture in a temporary location — without identifying a permanent site or publishing relocation cost estimates.

This reflects irresponsible planning and poor asset management.

Relocation will incur additional freight, possible storage, site preparation, and installation costs — all publicly funded but currently unbudgeted and undisclosed. This undermines CP4.8 Policy 13(i), which requires sustainable outcomes and lifecycle cost consideration at the time of acquisition.

The rationale for Stirling Gardens — its proximity to Council House and alignment with the “City of Light” branding — further highlights that this was a political decision, not a strategic cultural one. The City is using a prominent heritage site for political optics, while offering no clear plan for the sculpture’s long-term stewardship.

The rationale for using Stirling Gardens seems to point to a politically motivated decision aligning with the with the former Lord Mayor’s branding agenda.

This approach is fiscally reckless, lacks transparency, and ignores public art policy 
commitments to sustainability, authenticity, and site relevance.

Q13 Boonji Spaceman Installation
What is the rationale for placing it at Elizabeth Quay, and how does it respond to site context?

A13 Investigations are at early stages. Site context and engagement will be considered.

R13 The City’s response is vague and speculative — revealing that no site at Elizabeth Quay has been confirmed.

Placing Boonji Spaceman at Elizabeth Quay would repeat the same core issue as Stirling Gardens: a mass-produced artwork parachuted into a civic location with no meaningful relationship to place, culture, or community identity. This continues a pattern of ignoring CP4.8’s requirement for public art to respond to local site context and be site-specific.

There is also no evidence that the City has:
- Assessed technical suitability of any proposed site at EQ;
- Considered heritage, spatial, or environmental constraints;
- Conducted any public consultation or cultural advisory engagement;
- Published a budget or schedule for the relocation, installation, or ongoing maintenance at EQ.

At this point, the reference to Elizabeth Quay appears to be a rhetorical placeholder to mask the absence of forward planning. It reflects a reactive, rather than strategic, approach to public asset management, which is fiscally reckless, lacks transparency, and ignores public art policy commitments to sustainability, authenticity, and site relevance.

Q14 Decommissioning of Other Public Artworks
Was a structural report completed before removing Lorenna Grant’s Arch? Can findings be made public?

A14 Yes, a 2023 report found severe corrosion and impracticality of in situ repair.

R14 While the City confirms that a structural report was completed, it has not been made public, nor have any of its findings been released in full.

This lack of transparency contradicts the City’s obligations under best practice public collection governance, especially when decommissioning a major artwork by a well respected Western Australian artist.

The City has repeatedly failed to:

• Publish the full structural report or an accessible public summary;
• Document attempts to consult with the artist or seek expert conservation advice 
  before removal;
• Engage the Culture and Arts Advisory Group or independent curatorial  professionals in any formal oversight of the process.

Without access to the report, the public has no way of evaluating the legitimacy or urgency of the decommissioning decision. Given the City’s demonstrated inconsistency in how it  applies conservation standards — aggressively funding overseas works while removing locally significant pieces — this omission raises serious questions about governance, equity, and procedural fairness in public art management.

The City should release the report immediately.

More to follow...