This is the personal blog of Ian Ker, who was Councillor for the South Ward of the Town of Vincent from 1995 to 2009. I have been a resident of this area since 1985. This blog was originally conceived as a way of letting residents of Vincent know what I have been doing and sharing thoughts on important issues. I can now use it to sound off about things that concern me.

If you want to contact me, my e-mail is still ian_ker@hotmail.com or post a comment on this blog.

To post a comment on this blog, select the individual post on which you wish to comment, by clicking on the title in the post or in the list to the left of the blog, and scroll down to the 'Post a Comment' box at the foot.

Search This Blog

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Incorrect Call For Nominations

Surely the 'Call for Nominations'  for the local government elections on 19th October 2013 is at best misleading - or perhaps it gives hope to those of us who believe the emperor's forced amalgamation process should not succeed. It calls for nominations for 4-year terms or in some cases (such as where Vincent's Mayor has jumped ship*) 2-year terms, which would end in October 2017 or 2015 respectively.

And yet the emperor has published a timeline for amalgamations that would see commissioners installed on 1st July 2015 - less than 21 months after the October 2013 elections.

In the interests of honesty and truth (virtues in very short supply in this saga) in advertising, the call for nominations should at least state that the WA Government has stated its intention to abolish most of the metropolitan local governments and install commissioners on 1st July 2015.

*  No comments about rats and sinking ships, please.

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Backdown Barnett

Amazing - another example of an entirely predictable community backlash causing a substantial change in policy. What is it with this Government that it is so out of touch with real people that it can't even anticipate the blindingly obvious.
I wouldn't blame the families here on 457 visas if they adopted the spirit of the slogan that led to the War of American Independence: no taxation without representation - in their case, it might be 'no taxation without education'.

More Lies? Or Just a Promise that 'Doesn't Matter'

As a Councillor for the then Town of Vincent, I was always supportive of our schools and their need to upgrade facilities on what are often small sites. Indeed, the whole issue of 'Where Will They Go To School' as families moved back into the inner suburbs, was one which I was very concerned.

So I am disappointed to see the reduction in funding for much-needed enhancements to the Mt Hawthorn Primary School.
Guardian Express, 27th August 2013
I am not surprised, though, given the stated view of the Premier that "Promises don't matter".

Another Penny Dropping?

Alannah MacTiernan and Vincent Council have placed their faith in coming to agreement with the City of Perth on incorporation of the whole of Vincent, notwithstanding the fact that the Premier and the Local Government Minster seem to have different views about this.

Now it becomes clear that the City of Perth isn't enthusiastic about taking on the whole of Vincent, anyway.
Guardian Express, 27th August 2013
And whilst this is an officers' report not yet the endorsed view of elected Council, it is hard to believe that this report would have come to Council without a reasonable certainty of its being supported by elected members.

I hate to say "I told you so", but I did tell you so in my earlier post, 'Pyrrhic Victory'.

Not Convincing

I didn't hear Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, on ABC (and it's not on the ABC website - at least not yet), but the 'Freo's View' report of it sounds what one would expect on the basis of recent (non)performance.
http://freoview.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/fremantles-council-amalgamation-fight/#comment-19639
Oh! Did he really say "twinkering"? Perhaps he had been reading Wayne Visser's poem of that name, which comes across as unnervingly appropriate:
Making changes, swift and small
That seem to matter not at all
Yet send us forth on tangled ways
Into the heart of life's great maze.

Monday, August 26, 2013

Non-Evidence-Based Policy

For those who have been wondering at the lack of evidence from Barnett and Co about the 'benefits' of larger local governments, there is nothing new in a government's inability to base policy on evidence - nor in changing from co-operation to coercion.
Click to enlarge
Click to enlarge




But the evidence is there for Barnett and Co to ignore, too.
Click to enlarge

The Penny Drops - At Last

At long last, Alannah MacTiernan, Mayor of Vincent, has realised what this blog has been saying for the past month - Barnett and his minions/ministers can't be trusted, can't get their acts together and simply say what they think serves their purposes best at any particular time.
Click to enlarge
And I'm not sure that 'Vincent ratepayers were celebrating' on August 14 about the possibility of the whole of Vincent being swallowed up by the City of Perth - not if Vincent's own consultation is anything to go by (see previous post on this blog).

Sunday, August 25, 2013

Vincent Council Ignores Its Own Consultation

Perhaps in answer to the question I posed in the previous post, Margaret found the item below on-line. It seems that Vincent Council has ignored consultation it has already undertaken and would, therefore, be potentially embarrassed by the results of a referendum.

BTW, the headline is a product of its time and has since been shown to be at best partially correct (Bayswater is enthusiastic about taking over Bassendean and part of Stirling - not sure there are many other enthusiasts out there any more).

What's changed, Alannah?

Back in 1993, when the State Government refused to hold a referendum on the splitting of the City of Perth, Perth City Council ran its own referendum.

Guess who was a City of Perth Councillor at that time - our very own Alannah MacTiernan.

Fast-forward to 2013. The WA Government is forcing changes (splits/amalgamations) to local governments and has stated its intention to remove the provision in the Local Government Act that allows electors to call for a poll on any such changes.

Why, I wonder, does Vincent, with Alannah as Mayor, not think it worth emulating the 1993 City of Perth in running its own referendum - perhaps in conjunction with the October 2013 local government election.

This referendum should have two questions (to avoid the problems of the republic referendum, which split the vote between two republic options).
- Should the City of Vincent be split between Perth and Stirling, as proposed by the WA Government?
- Should Vincent continue as a local government in its own right or become part of the City of Perth?

And Again! Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

In the 9th November 1993 debate on the City of Perth Restructuring Bill, the process leading to the 'autocratic announcement being made by the Government' was described thus (Hansard, 9th November 1993):

"…nothing was contained in the policies and programs of the Government when in Opposition to indicate that it had a proposal of this kind in prospect."

"…no consultation occurred at all with the elected members. Not only did the ratepayers of Western Australia not know a thing about this, but also the PCC councillors had to find out by the small number of leaks that occurred."

"Despite a clear, unanimous proposition put to the Minister that there must be a referendum on this question, he simply sat there … and repeated the lines that the decision had been made and the Government would not change it."

"In the context of no election policy relating to this question - in fact, some policies that directly contradict it - no consultation with the elected representatives is the height of arrogance. It is a totally undemocratic stance to say to the electors and ratepayers, "I'm sorry. We're not going to consult you. Your views don't matter."

Now, it is true that these statements were made by Dr Carmen Lawrence who, as Leader of the Opposition, had good reason to portray the Government in a bad light, but no Government member interjected, corrected or contradicted any of these statements - despite frequent such responses in other parts of the debate.

If this all sounds horribly familiar, it's probably because it's all happening again - but this time Barnett wants to reverse part of the decision he so fervently supported back then. Funny, though, I don't recall his admitting to having made a mistake back in 1993.

Oh! What a Tangled (World Wide) Web We Weave.

Thanks to the electronic archiving on-line of the Hansard records of parliamentary debates in Western Australia we can see some of the views expressed previously by the Premier of WA on local government.

On 9th November 1993, the Legislative Assembly debated the City of Perth Restructuring Bill, which had been introduced by the then Liberal Government. Colin Barnett was then Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party and Leader of the House in the Legislative Assembly - and hence responsible for ensuring the passage of the Bill through the lower house of the WA Parliament. Whilst he did not speak directly on the Bill, he made a number of interjections, including:

"Do you think it is equitable that the central city should cross-subsidise selected residential areas…? (Hansard, p6493). [By implication arguing that the about-to-be-created municipalities of Vincent, Victoria Park and Cambridge received subsidies from the CBD.]

"Sheer nonsense. What you are saying is that the dormitory areas of Perth are not viable, but suburbs everywhere else can pay for themselves." (Hansard, p6493) [By implication arguing that the about-to-be-created municipalities of Vincent, Victoria Park and Cambridge were viable.]

"Don't you believe in a capital city for Western Australia?" (Hansard p6496) [In response to comment from Diana Warnock that: "The Government has presented this report as justification for splitting up the city in this way and how it can be done economically. People simply are not able to believe the figures.]

"Where is the democracy in that?" (Hansard p6497) [In response to Diana Warnock's statement that : "Most of us want to see improvements in in the planning for the central city, and that is why we advanced the idea of a central city planning authority."]

"…of the 27 councillors only three represent the capital city. Little wonder that it is bereft of life, it lacks planning, it is visually unattractive, and it is empty at the weekends. That is a consequence of the imbalance of the Perth City Council structure, and that must be addressed. (Hansard, p6497). [Presumably this means that if Perth were to reabsorb the whole of Vincent, he would want to ensure that the 11,000 electors of the City of Perth would have more influence than the 20,000 electors of Vincent - a good old-fashioned gerrymander, reminiscent of Jo Bjelke Peterson in Queensland.]

"That is a very efficient council." (Hansard, p6514). [In response to mention of Peppermint Grove by Dr Geoff Gallop.]

Friday, August 23, 2013

Stirring in the ranks

There is stirring in the ranks of those who are unhappy with Col's threat to remove the 'Dadour Amendment' poll provisions of the Local Government Act. This is an issue of democracy and does not depend on one's views of the proposed local government amalgamations themselves. If the proposals are well-thought-out and beneficial, Barnett should be able to convince us of their value.
Go to http://www.communityrun.org/petitions/my-local-government-my-decision for further information and to sign.

Missing the Point

I suppose I should be flattered that Alannah MacTiernan thought my 'Speaker's Corner' piece in the Perth Voice worth responding to. However, it appears that she has missed a key point - namely that you won't get better than you ask for. The Mayors of Kwinana and Stirling are standing up for their communities and their right to have a real say in the process; why are Vincent residents denied this?

Mayor MacTiernan no doubt has her own personal recollections of the City of Perth, having been a Councillor there before being elected to the WA Parliament. These might have coloured her current perception.

She raises the issues of place-making and 'lively street cultures', without, apparently, realising that these are very different beasts in Vincent and Perth. Place-making in a capital city with a daytime transient population of over 100,000 (workers plus visitors) every day is different from placemaking in a smaller centre in close proximity to residents where activity is smaller-scale and more likely to be evenings and weekends

It was Vincent (at the instigation of myself and Vincent's Executive Director of Planning), along with Fremantle, Claremont, Cockburn, Gosnells, Kwinana, Subiaco and Victoria Park that sponsored the 2009 Mainstreet Conference. There was no interest in doing so from the City of Perth.


City of Perth does some good things, no doubt, but the skills and attitudes required to do these things in a CBD are not the same as those required for an inner-urban mixed residential area with urban villages.

I also hope that City of Perth, should Vincent be absorbed by it, becomes a bit more efficient and expeditious in carrying out infrastructure projects. How many years, now, has Wellington Street been a disaster area? And the changes to William Street and St George's Terrace seemed to go on for ever, too.

And, please, no more green worms - as one who fought against the pink milk crates that David Bromfield would have inflicted on the residents of Vincent, I've had more than my fill of garbage masquerading as art.

Word of the Week

Sociopath (from the Urban Dictionary)
A person with antisocial personality disorder. Probably the most widely recognized personality disorder. A sociopath is often well liked because of their charm and high charisma, but they do not usually care about other people. They think mainly of themselves and often blame others for the things that they do. They have a complete disregard for rules and lie constantly. They seldom feel guilt or learn from punishments.

From How to spot a sociopath
Sociopaths are masters at weaving elaborate fictional explanations to justify their actions. When caught red-handed, they respond with anger and threats, then weave new fabrications to explain away whatever they were caught doing.

Sociopaths are masters are presenting themselves as heroes with high morals and philosophy, yet underneath it they are the true criminal minds in society who steal, undermine, deceive, and often incite emotional chaos among entire communities. They are masters at turning one group of people against another group while proclaiming themselves to be the one true savior. Wherever they go, they create strife, argument and hatred, yet they utterly fail to see their own role in creating it. They are delusional at so many levels that their brains defy logical reasoning.

You cannot reason with a sociopath. Attempting to do so only wastes your time and annoys the sociopath.

At last……………

A Mayor who is willing to stand up and say that the emperor's forced local government changes are not in the interests of his community. [See 'Kwinana Comes to Life' for another.]
Perth Voice, Saturday 24th August 2013. [Click to enlarge]

Another unfunded 'promise'

And we shouldn't be surprised if the bidding consortia build up the price now they know there could be $100 million more available.

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Confusion and Mixed Messages

From the Guardian Express, 20th August 2013 (click to enlarge)
 

Serendipitous Sunset

Sun sets on the City of Vincent (Photograph: Ian Ker © 2009)
Singer/songwriter/folkie Don McLean was in Perth on Monday and, of course, he sang his 'anthem', Vincent. How eerily appropriate are these lines from that song:

I could have told you, Vincent, this world was never meant for one as beautiful as you.

They would not listen, they're not listening still, perhaps they never will.

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

More Lies

Just when you thought it might (? - not really!) be safe to believe something a Minister in the Barnett Government said - even if only because even the most cynical of them must see their credibility getting rather thin - there comes another example of lies, incompetence, mushroom treatment or simple confusion.

Monday, August 19, 2013

Barnett Government Fails To Follow Due Process

It seems that local government is not the only issue on which the Barnett Government thinks itself above the law and its requirements for due process.

The WA Supreme Court has ruled invalid the WA Government's approval of the James Price Gas Hub in the Kimberley, on the grounds that the process was flawed.

The Barnett Government has shown similar lack of respect for well-established requirements of the law in its forcing of local government amalgamations and will be subject to similar legal challenges.

Friday, August 16, 2013

Victim Psychology


The more I look at the City of Vincent's graphic for its current campaign, the less clear I am what it means.

Is it a dove being released from the box it has been long-imprisoned in - perhaps reflecting a desire to escape into the big wide world? - aka the City of Perth?

Is it a homing pigeon that has been taken far from home and now being let go to see how long it takes to find its 'real' home? - aka the City of Perth?

Or is it a free bird about to be trapped in a box (aka the City of Perth?) it has no desire to be in and is trying to fly from?

Whatever the interpretation, it looks like passivity or victim psychology to me.

I much prefer the image of the Phoenix, symbolising renewal, resurrection and the exceptional.
Image from Wikimedia Commons - freely licensed media file (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phoenix-Fabelwesen.jpg)

Giving Away the Family Farm

What does Alannah MacTiernan mean when she says; "A merger with the City of Perth would see the benefits of these assets shared with all ratepayers"?

After demonstrating the strength of the City of Vincent's financial position, including the many assets the Town/City has developed during the 18 years of its existence, she is apparently touting as a benefit of absorption into the City of Perth that the benefits of these will be diluted as far as Vincent ratepayers are concerned.

This all sounds like the bride-to-be in a forced marriage spruiking the majesty of her dowry to her future master. Unfortunately, most of this dowry has already been promised to the City of Perth by Colin Barnett.

And what would we get in return? The City of Perth is, no doubt, also well-off - apart from anything else, it gets lots of money from those car commuters who pound through Vincent every day to park in the City's car parks - but, on past experience, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any of that to be shared with us. 

Twenty years ago, the business people of the CBD were only too pleased to be rid of us (and Victoria Park and Cambridge) because they thought they were subsidising the residential areas. Now, it seems, they want to reclaim the assets created by the people of those self-same residential areas. Alannah is clearly aware of this, as she says: "City of Perth ratepayers should not be concerned that merging with Vincent will be a drain on their resources as the assets and cash held by Vincent will be a boost to their bottom line".

Looks like a one-way trip to me - and you'd have to be on LSD to think it looked like a good deal for the people and businesses of Vincent.

Kwinana Comes to Life

It can be difficult for the Mayor of a local government to say what she really thinks of what is happening, when doing so is likely to prejudice the Premier even further against her. So, all praise to Carol Adams, Mayor of Kwinana for this.

Thursday, August 15, 2013

Coincidence - or a Threat?

Is it pure coincidence that the Local Government Advisory Board is due to report on Col's amalgamation proposals just before the local government elections that are due on 19th October 2013?

The answer to that question may lie  (and I use the word advisedly) in comments made by Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, in a 'Local Government Update' on 5th August. He said:
"There will be a strong focus on achieving a seamless service delivery during the changeover to the planned local governments in 2015. 
During the transition stage, local governments will continue to operate with their Chief Executive Officers in place to run the existing administrations until the new entities are created.
Commissioners will be appointed from the first day of the new entities and will continue in the role until the next elections in October 2015, about three-and-a-half months.
The Minister for Local Government can also appoint commissioners at an earlier stage if the reform process is unsatisfactory…"

In other words, if local Councils, or even their communities, continue to argue or protest we'll put Commissioners who will bow to the Government's will in their place.

Just ask residents of the City of Canning how well that is currently working for them!

Seems odd, also, to put Commissioners in for such a short period - except, of course, that they would be able to make sure that the new local governments were set up in exactly the compliant way that the emperor wants.

I wouldn't mind betting that we'll see commissioners (or should that be Commissars?) from October 2013 for all metropolitan local governments except those fortunate few that are unaffected by the changes or those that have already rolled over.

He Doesn't Care

That's what Colin Barnett said to Paul Murray on 6PR on Wednesday 14th August.

To be fair, he said that in the context of the actual boundaries between local governments. He is firm, though, he said on reducing the number of metropolitan local governments by half.

What most of us see though, Mr Premier, is a government that truly doesn't care about the community; a government for which the ends justify the means - a phrase coined (in Italian) by Niccolo Machiavelli iThe Prince and infamously co-opted as a political dictum by Joseph Stalin.

The end does not justify the means, Mr Premier, because the long-term outcome of ignoring principles in order to buy short-term results is a failure of your own goals. When you have a principle, like 'do not steal', it cannot be overridden because you have some end in mind that you think will benefit several other people who 'deserve it more'.

When you have a principle like democracy, Mr Premier, it cannot be overridden because you think the changes you want to happen will be better for those affected. 

The basic principle of democracy, Mr Premier, is that people have a right to a say in how government affects their lives. 

In March 2013, Mr Premier, people voted for your government with the clear assurance from you that there would be no forced amalgamations of local governments. 

That is not to say there should be no amalgamations, but there was a statutory process for investigating and determining such proposals, including the right of the people affected to reject them - with criteria (majority of those voting, subject to 50% poll turnout) that in practice are quite difficult to achieve unless people feel really strongly about the issue - typical local government election turnout, even with postal voting, is around 30%.


This process, Mr Premier, you have said you intend to subvert by removing the provision from the Local Government Act.


Are you really so unsure of yourself and your proposals, Mr Premier, that you don't think you can get the support of 30% of the people affected (for a high 60% turnout)?

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Pyrrhic Victory

Thanks to CanningAccountability for this.

The Premier has opened the door to the City of Perth swallowing up the whole of the City of Vincent, but there's a catch.

The catch is that the two local governments have to agree. The City of Perth doesn't really want the residential areas of Vincent, preferring to cherry-pick the valuable real estate of the southern part. The City of Perth knows that Vincent Council is desperate not to be split with the northern part going to the City of Stirling.

No prizes for identifying who holds the whip hand in any negotiations. If the City of Vincent disappears in this scenario, it will be on terms dictated by the City of Perth.

No doubt Vincent Council will trumpet this as a victory - but at what a cost.

Vincent will be no more.

Vincent will become the unwanted residential rump of the City of Perth, to be hidden away and neglected as it was prior to 1994.

And if Perth and Vincent can't agree, Colin Barnett can claim that his original proposal has been justified.

How to get your way and blame everyone else.

Good one, Col!

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

We All Have The Right To Be Heard - so, in the words of John Hyde, former Mayor of Vincent, "BE LOUD AND BE PROUD"

The Local Government Act, 1995, doesn't restrict the right to make submissions to the Local Government Advisory Board on proposed boundary changes to local governments alone. Every affected individual (and even, technically, an individual who is not affected) has the right to make a submission on any boundary change proposal that is the subject of a formal inquiry by the LGAB.
Equally important, the Board is required to consider all submissions and to have regard to:
- community of interests
- physical and topographical features
- demographic trends
- economic factors
- the history of the area
- transport and communication
- matters affecting the viability of local governments
- the effective delivery of local government services.
So the opportunity is there to make the Local Government Advisory Board fully (and painfully) aware of the strength of feeling about these ill-considered proposals. And the eight points above provide a simple template for expressing your views. I can see people having a field day in respect of community of interest (or, rather, lack thereof) for many of the proposed changes, such as splitting the Beaufort Street/Mt Lawley centre between three local governments.
Just be sure to state your name and address and the proposal on which you are commenting. Say whether you support the proposal or not (bureaucrats love to be able to simply add up Yeas and Nays) and then go on to make your comments. Feel free to attach any documents in support of your comments.
If you would like a pro forma to help you make your submission, email me at ian_ker2@hotmail.com and I will email a WORD document for you to complete in your own words.
You can email your submission to advisory.board@dlg.wa.gov.au, mail to the Local Government Advisory Board, GPO Box R1250, Perth, WA 6844 or deliver in person at Department of Local Government and Communities, Gordon Stephenson House, 140 William Street, Perth, WA 6000. Public access to Gordon Stephenson House is from the Murray Street Mall near the Perth Underground station, but you'll have to navigate around hoardings and building works.

Monday, August 12, 2013

More Sloppy Policy

Colin Barnett has announced a u-turn on the amount people with solar panels will get for electricity they put into the grid (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/18456332/cabinet-reverses-solar-tariff-decision). The cut, from 40 cents/unit to 20 cents/unit, will not now go ahead - because of all the backlash from the community and from members of his own party.

All this just hours after the Treasurer, Troy Buswell, was defending the cuts on the grounds of the broader public interest. It seems this government can't even get its act together when they get it right (in the end).

Now, just what sort of reaction did Barnett think he was going to get to a proposal that not only cut the amount people received in half but was also almost certainly illegal (a letter from Synergy sent in 2011 stated that customers would receive the 40 cents for the full term of their 10-year contract).  Just what part of 'legally-binding contract' does his emperorness not understand?

Out of the three possible reasons for changing his mind (community outrage, pressure from government MPs or illegality), my money is on the second as being the key one.

So perhaps there is still hope for getting a better outcome for local government and local communities without resorting to forced amalgamations. Lobby Liberal/National Members of Parliament and if enough of them see some semblance of sense perhaps CB will make (yet another) u-turn.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose - Again

Quintus Cicero (who apparently possessed a penchant for outrageous acts of cruelty) is reputed to have penned advice for his brother, Marcus Tullius Cicero, on how to get elected as Consul of Rome over 2000 years ago - pre-dating the more notorious 'The Prince' by Nicolo Machiavelli by over 1500 years. Eureka Street has drawn attention to this in the context of the current Federal election, but (at least) one aspect is clearly demonstrated by the WA State Election in 2013.


Quintus Cicero wrote that anyone seeking election should:
Promise everything to everyone. If problems arise after the election it is easier to deal with them if you are in power.

Sound familiar? In the 2013 election campaign, Colin Barnett promised 'no forced amalgamations of local government', most specifically to his western suburbs constituents. Just a few months later he is in the process of forcing such amalgamations across the metropolitan area and his constituents are faced with the prospect of a single mega-council.


I wonder (rhetorically) what the result of the election would have been if he had been honest before the election.


Methinks, however, that Emperor Barnett has also been influenced by Machiavelli, who noted that a prince is praised for keeping his word but is also praised for the illusion of being reliable in keeping his word. 


A prince, therefore, should only keep his word when it suits his purposes, but do his utmost to maintain the illusion that he does keep his word and that he is reliable in that regard
.

Emperor Col seems to have taken the first part of that to heart, most notoriously (but not solely - 
http://brokenpromises.org.au) in forced local government amalgamations, but failed to grasp the latter. 


I suppose we should be thankful for small mercies. At least we can see his lies for what they are.

Friday, August 9, 2013

How Not To Understand A Community

In the debate on Mark McGowan's Motion on a Matter of Public Interest, the Minister for Local Government, Tony Simpson (I'm sure there must be lots of apposite Simpsons quotes to come for this whole charade) made some very illuminating comments.

He said: "I took the opportunity to drive up and down Beaufort Street". Is that the sum total of Mr Simpson's knowledge of the Mt Lawley area for which he proposes major upheavals? He might, at least, have walked for a while, perhaps talked to a few people, taken the time to hear how people feel about their community.

He also said: "The Mayor of Belmont was at the breakfast today and raised one good point with me. He said that the City of Belmont provides some fantastic services to its community with security patrols and so forth. He asked, “Am I expected to do the same for Pickering Brook up in Kalamunda?” I said, “Well, no. At the end of the day the ratepayers are entitled to the same service they get today but I am sure with the two coming together we can deliver better services. But I know for a fact, because I represent Pickering Brook, that they do not want the services of the City of Belmont because they live in a rural atmosphere and that’s what they like living there for."

This raises key questions about community of interest.

And then there is pure sloppiness. Mr Simpson said: "I thought that the whole of the airport site had been put into the City of Belmont to make sure there was clearly one local government for the City of Belmont and the airport, but interestingly they [people at the Property Council breakfast] identified that a corner of the industrial area has been missed out."

This is inexcusable sloppiness in the development of public policy that that will have major effects on the lives and businesses of the people of Perth for decades to come.

The Minister should not rely on the Local Government Advisory Board to rectify the deficiencies in his proposals. Indeed, there are limits on the extent to which the Board can make a recommendation that differs from that into which it was asked to inquire (see para 6, below). A recommendation for a proposal that is 'significantly different' from the one into which the Board was asked to inquire triggers a whole new process, requiring:
(a) notice to affected local governments, affected electors and the other electors of districts directly affected by the recommendation 
(b) adequate opportunity for submissions to be made about the intended order; and
(c) consideration of those submissions by the LGAB.

If a local government was this sloppy, the Minister would, no doubt, be jumping up and down and decrying its inefficiency. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander, Minister.

Extract from Hansard, 6th August 2013


Mr A.J. SIMPSON: It is all about making sure we develop a vibrant city and making sure we get it right. I must admit that there will always be some anomalies in the system. As I said at question time today, I took the opportunity to drive up and down Beaufort Street, and that was one of the clear things that came back to me at the Beaufort Street festival. But just keep in mind, members, that the current boundary between the City of Vincent and the City of Perth is Newcastle Street. The Northbridge festival seems to operate all right and does not seem to have a problem with the boundary on Newcastle Street. As we look at where the boundaries lie, I must agree that there are some anomalies in the system. Perhaps the Beaufort Street boundary will not work and we may have to move it up a bit. However, the proposals for the City of Stirling, the City of Bayswater and the City of Perth will be put to the Local Government Advisory Board to identify any anomaly that needs to be looked at. This morning at the Property Council breakfast people from Perth Airport identified an anomaly. I thought that the whole of the airport site had been put into the City of Belmont to make sure there was clearly one local government for the City of Belmont and the airport, but interestingly they identified that a corner of the industrial area has been missed out. The most important thing again is that the Gateway WA project and the airport development will all be within one local government all the way through to Forrestfield and High Wycombe and up into the rural aspect of Kalamunda. The Mayor of Belmont was at the breakfast today and raised one good point with me. He said that the City of Belmont provides some fantastic services to its community with security patrols and so forth. He asked, “Am I expected to do the same for Pickering Brook up in Kalamunda?” I said, “Well, no. At the end of the day the ratepayers are entitled to the same service they get today but I am sure with the two coming together we can deliver better services. But I know for a fact, because I represent Pickering Brook, that they do not want the services of the City of Belmont because they live in a rural atmosphere and that’s what they like living there for. They’re not in that process.”

Extract from Schedule 2.1 to the Local Government Act 1995.

               (1)         After formally inquiring into a proposal, the Advisory Board, in a written report to the Minister, is to recommend* — 
                           (a)         that the Minister reject the proposal; or
                           (b)         that an order be made in accordance with the proposal; or
                           (c)         if it thinks fit after complying with subclause (2), the making of some other order that may be made under section 2.1.
               * Absolute majority required.
               (2)         The Advisory Board is not to recommend to the Minister the making of an order that is significantly different from the proposal into which it formally inquired unless the Board has — 
                           (a)         given* notice to affected local governments, affected electors and the other electors of districts directly affected by the recommendation of its intention to do so; and
                           (b)         afforded adequate opportunity for submissions to be made about the intended order; and
                           (c)            considered any submissions made.
* Absolute majority required.

Broken Promises and Dishonesty

Somehow missing from media coverage (at least, any that I saw) was Tuesday's debate on a "Matter of Public Interest" in which Mark McGowan moved:
"That this house condemns the Premier for his numerous broken promises and dishonesty in misleading the people of Western Australia before the election in relation to the issue of forced council amalgamations." 

Tedious though parliamentary debates often are, this one is well worth reading (http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Hansard/hansard.nsf/0/c20cc26db0fd91fa48257bbf0069d275/$FILE/A39%20S1%2020130806%20p15e-27a.pdf) as it highlights the extent to which the Premier engages in linguistic gymnastics to obscure the undeniable fact that he is forcing his version of amalgamations on local governments and their communities. He continually reverts to the argument that 30 councils is too many for the metropolitan area while ignoring the non-sensical outcomes of his simplistic solutions.

Reducing the number of local governments in the metropolitan area might be desirable, but let those who live there have a say and you would end up with boundaries that had some semblance of community of interest about them.

Just for the record, here are the recorded votes - along party lines as one would expect. It will be interesting to see whether any LibNats are willing to stand up to Bully Barnett in later votes on substantial issues - but I'm not holding my breath.

Ayes (17 - all Labor) 
Ms L.L. Baker       Mr M. McGowan      Ms M.M. Quirk      Mr B.S. Wyatt 
Mr R.H. Cook       Ms S.F. McGurk       Mrs M.H. Roberts   Mr D.A. Templeman (Teller) 
Ms J.M. Freeman   Mr M.P. Murray       Ms R. Saffioti 
Mr D.J. Kelly        Mr P. Papalia            Mr C.J. Tallentire 
Mr F.M. Logan     Mr J.R. Quigley        Mr P.B. Watson 

Noes (34 - all Liberal/National) 
Mr P. Abetz          Ms M.J. Davies         Mr C.D. Hatton          Mr D.C. Nalder 
Mr F.A. Alban      Mr J.H.D. Day          Mr A.P. Jacob            Mr J. Norberger 
Mr C.J. Barnett     Ms W.M. Duncan      Dr G.G. Jacobs          Mr D.T. Redman 
Mr I.C. Blayney    Ms E. Evangel           Mr S.K. L’Estrange   Mr A.J. Simpson 
Mr I.M. Britza       Mr J.M. Francis         Mr R.S. Love             Mr M.H. Taylor 
Mr T.R. Buswell   Mrs G.J. Godfrey      Mr W.R. Marmion     Mr T.K. Waldron 
Mr G.M. Castrilli   Mr B.J. Grylls           Mr P.T. Miles            Mr J.E. McGrath (Teller) 
Mr V.A. Catania    Dr K.D. Hames         Ms A.R. Mitchell 
Mr M.J. Cowper    Mrs L.M. Harvey      Mr N.W. Morton


Pairs (balanced absence from the House for approved reasons)
Ms J. Farrer (ALP)                                Dr M.D. Nahan (Liberal)
Mr W.J. Johnston (ALP)                       Mr R.F. Johnson  (Liberal)
Dr A.D. Buti (ALP)                              Mr A. Krsticevic  (Liberal)

Not recorded (presumably absent)
Mr P C Tinley (ALP)

Sunday, August 4, 2013

Thanks…but no thanks

In a Nutshell, from Freo's View (click for link)

W.A. Premier Colin Barnett says in five years time we will all thank him for the local council amalgamations and ask ourselves what all the fuss was about, but the outcry is not about not wanting council mergers, it is about the fact that the Premier wants to force them when he said before the election he wouldn’t. It is also about getting better boundaries for the council mergers, not the lazy options the state government proposes.

Saturday, August 3, 2013

Secret Minutes from the Emperor's Bunker

The document below, which throws an interesting, if unsurprising, light on the decision-making of the WA Government, has come into the possession of this blogger. I can't vouch for its authenticity (but it seems believable in the light of recent events) and unfortunately only the first page could be retrieved - so we might never know what was resolved under the heading of 'Abolishing the Opposition', but extrapolation from the local government item is strongly suggestive.

Anyway, for what it is worth (perhaps no more than a good laugh - and if you didn't laugh at what the Emperor does you'd be crying non-stop), here is the document (click on it to make larger).

Waiting for an Accessible Taxi

For decades, people with disabilities have had to put up with a second-class taxi service with only a proportion of taxis being wheelchair-accessible. This has been justified on the basis that there was no generally-acceptable taxi vehicle that was wheelchair accessible.

The quid pro quo was that the taxi industry undertook to provide comparable response times for phone bookings, but this has been more a hope than an expectation - and did not help people with disabilities get a taxi at a rank or hailing on the street. In recent times, the WA Taxi Council has been trying to weasel out of even this concession by seeking an exemption from the requirement from the Australian Human Rights Commission, which oversees the Standards.

So it was with disbelief, tinged with sadness, that I saw the Department of Transport advertising in The West Australian (Saturday 3rd August, p44) for manufacturer expressions of interest for a 'purpose-built taxi trial' that did not mention accessibility at all.


This is a once-only opportunity to move towards a totally accessible taxi fleet - as, for example, New York is doing.

It is no longer the case that there is no generally-acceptable taxi vehicle that is wheelchair accessible. New York can do it and there are numerous vehicles in most other developed countries that are used as accessible taxis - not just the basic van-based vehicles we see in Perth.

I call upon the Department of Transport to withdraw its current call for expressions of interest for a purpose-built taxi trial and to replace it with one that calls for the vehicles to be wheelchair-accessible.

Friday, August 2, 2013

When Consolidation and Amalgamation really mean Fragmentation and Confusion

Despite all the rhetoric from the emperor about effectiveness, efficiency, co-ordination and simplification in the current shenanigans about forced local government amalgamations, there is at least one place where the situation has been made much more complex.

The Beaufort Street/Mt Lawley centre is a thriving commercial and cafe strip, but has always had difficulties because it was split between two Councils with rather different planning and community-development philosophies relating to town centres.

Emperor Barnett now proposes to split this centre between three local governments.
To add to the complication, Stirling was previously responsible for the area north of Walcott Street, but now takes over one side of the area of Beaufort Street that was previously the domain of the City of Vincent. The City of Perth takes over the other part of the previous City of Vincent responsibility. And Bayswater/Bassendean takes over the area previously the responsibility of the City of Stirling.

So, EVERYONE has to adjust to the oversight of a different local government from the one they deal with now. How is that supposed to bring about improvement?