Amazing (well, perhaps not) how many people say, as new Vincent Councillor Laine McDonald does, that their preference is for Vincent to stay as it is. More amazing is how many, including the City of Vincent Council, fell into the trap of giving up on this very early in the piece.

Notwithstanding Vincent's formal proposal to the Local Government Advisory Board that the whole of Vincent be incorporated into the City of Perth, there is still real hope that the people of Vincent will be able to express their real views in response to any proposal - see yesterday's blog 'Dadour Provision Safe - For Now - But Minister Calls It Anti-Democratic'.

It's important that the City of Vincent Council does not withdraw it's proposal, to ensure that electors will have something better than either the Barnett/Simpson or City of Perth proposals to vote on.

Guardian Express, 29th October 2013

Dadour Provision Safe - For Now - But Minister Calls It Anti-Democratic

In a stunning piece of linguistic gymnastics, the WA Minister for Local Government, Tony Simpson, has labelled the Dadour provision of the Local Government Act as being 'contrary to the principle of democratic local government'.

At the same time, he has introduced legislation on his so-called local government reform that leaves this provision intact - presumably on the basis that attempting to remove it would be too unpopular to succeed. In other words, most people want to retain it - sounds like democracy to me.

The threat of an attempt to remove the Dadour provision is still there - but not until next year, it seems.

Interestingly, at the time of writing this blog (5pm) there is no media release on the Minister's website.

More Mushroom Treatment

Not only have neither we nor the Parliament been told by this Government how much the forced local government amalgamations would cost nor the scale of the 'benefits' they would bring, we now see the same treatment applied the proposed remerger of Verve and Synergy. If the Minister doesn't have the figures yet, how on earth can he justify rushing the legislation into Parliament.

Oh! And just in case the Minister thinks he can simply throw a few numbers at us to keep us quiet, there are many of us who would want to know what the inputs and assumptions were for the assessment. Changes such as this are as much about risk management as they are about predictable outcomes - something that too many politicians seem to be unable or unwilling to grasp.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/19600890/power-merger-cost-kept-secret

We, The Community, Are Not The Only Ones Affected

As the article below from the October issue of the Journal of the Local Government Managers Association cogently argues, council staff are at least as likely to be adversely affected by forced amalgamations as is the community.

Council staff will often be the meat in the amalgamation sandwich - let's not make their jobs any more difficult than we have to.

http://localgovernmentmanager.lgma.org.au/#folio=10

http://localgovernmentmanager.lgma.org.au/#folio=11

Palmer Prefers Incompetence to Truth

The only possible interpretation I can put on Clive Palmer's rant about the Australian Electoral Commission and the lengthy recount for the Senate in WA that could see his candidate 'de-elected' is that he would prefer his candidate to be elected on the basis of an 'incompetent' count than getting the result to reflect the true intentions of the WA voters.

No wonder that politicians and wanabe politicians have credibility and respect problems.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/19576679/palmer-fury-at-senate-recount-confusion

Truth Will Out

So now we have it - from the horse's mouth, as it were. They're all at it! At least, all MPs will be tainted by Don Randall's assertions unless there is more honesty on the issue of expenses.

Unapologetic Don Randall (he who will not see) spills the beans and tells us that "MPs on both sides of politics had sympathised with him privately since the scandal broke on the grounds that he had 'taken the heat' off their similar conduct".

Well, here's a suggestion, how about those MPs who have sympathised 'privately' in this way 'fess up and let the great unwashed of the Australian electorate pass judgment on their behaviour.

Perils of Parallel Walks

It is a pity that Main Roads seems so fixated on journey times for motorists, to the detriment of pedestrians ('Faster lights make for quicker trips', West Australian, 25th October). It would be interesting to see an assessment of pedestrian crossing times with parallel walk phases in the city where these have replaced the previous 'scramble' crossings.

But the greater problem with parallel walks is outside the heavy traffic areas of the Perth CBD, where the time given to pedestrians is totally inadequate. Often, a pedestrian is unable even to reach the middle of the road before the signal for motor vehicles turns green.

Perth drivers, being as they are, seem to be incapable of observing that there is a pedestrian crossing the road or, if they do, they expect him/her to stop in the middle of the road rather than completing the crossing. 

It is not just left-turning drivers, either. Right-turning drivers are likely to be looking for a gap in the oncoming traffic and take advantage of that gap when it occurs, often irrespective of whether there is a pedestrian crossing the road they are turning into.

My grandchildren and whoever is accompanying them have to cross two legs of a nearby intersection on their way to school every day and I have lost count of the number of times drivers have failed to see them. On one occasion, I was physically assaulted by the driver of a car after I failed to scamper out of the way when he drove at me.

The solution is simple - extend the time for pedestrians before traffic gets a green light. Allowing for reaction time (to observe the green pedestrian light), the pedestrian time needs to be at least ten seconds rather the current four to give all pedestrians (including children, the elderly and those with disabilities) a sensible time to cross a four-lane road.

At places like this, it's not as though such an increase would have a huge impact on driver travel times, as the traffic usually clears in a single phase and the pedestrian phase is not used every time. And drivers are quite likely to catch the red at the next set of signals anyway.

There's None So Blind As He Who Will Not See

Just when I thought it was safe to give Colin Barnett a bit if praise, for once, on pollies with snouts in the trough, he turns round and shows me to be wrong. What he really meant, presumably, was that it is wrong for individual politicians to claim money they weren't entitled to - but there's nothing wrong with a political party benefiting from a decision made by one of its members - especially when the Premier has 'plausible deniability'.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/19514796/barnett-unfazed-by-nats-donation-from-sage

No Surprise in Barnett's Ruling Out Compulsory Voting

No surprise here, in view of Barnett's statement a couple of weeks ago that he intended to remodel the so-called Dadour provision of the Local Government Act so that anyone who didn't vote was actually counted as being in favour of the amalgamation proposal being voted on. Heavens above! If they were actually made to vote, they might express their real preference and vote against the Government's wishes.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-22/compulsory-local-government-voting-ruled-out-again/5037708?&section=news

Don't Write Off Dadour Vote

Although the low local government election turnout might seem to be a danger for application of the Dadour provisions, I wouldn't be too disheartened. As I wrote here yesterday, there are many reasons why electors might have chosen not to vote. Some of these apply to the immediate situation of negativity towards local government and wouldn't necessarily apply to a Dadour vote where the issue is a long-term one.

There will be people (dare I say the silent majority) who are quite happy with their local government or, at the very least, prefer 'the devil they know' to 'the devil they don't'. There is so much uncertainty about the working of the forced-amalgamated councils - and the evidence is mounting that larger councils are not more efficient and are not well-regarded by their communities - that many will prefer the status quo.

It will, of course, be interesting to see how Colin Barnett interprets the weekend's voting. If he really believes that the changes are in the best interests of communities, he should be able to convince us and leave the Dadour provisions alone.

Why The Low Turnout?

Much will no doubt be made of the low turnout in the WA Local Government elections, but before Colin Barnett jumps in to claim that the cause is disenchantment with local governments that would be magically overcome by his proposed forced amalgamations he should consider these points:

- The WA Government itself has been directly responsible for causing much of any disenchantment through its campaign of vilification of 'small' local governments.

- The lowest voting rates were in the largest local governments.

- Some (many?) people would have said to themselves, "What's the point in voting when my local Council will be abolished or changed beyond recognition in less than two years?"

- Plebiscites in Vincent and Mosman Park produce resounding majorities in favour of keeping their existing local Councils intact and against the WA Governments amalgamations.

Vincent

Mosman Park

Electors Want To Keep Vincent

Apart from the low turnout (below 30%), which reflected the overall election for Vincent, the plebiscite was a substantial vote for retaining the City of Vincent (Q2 - 77%) but if Vincent is to be abolished then electors overwhelmingly prefer the Vincent Council's model of the whole of Vincent going into Perth (Q1 - nearly 90%) to the City of Perth or State Government model of splitting Vincent between Perth and Stirling.

Let's hope this causes Colin Barnett to rethink his ill-considered forced amalgamations of local government.

And congratulations to John Carey, overwhelmingly elected as Vincent Mayor (87% of the vote); to Matt Buckels and Josh Topelberg on being re-elected as Councillors and to Emma Cole and Laine McDonald  on being elected for the first time.

The next two years will be a difficult time for Vincent Council. I hope elected members know that they have the strong support of the community in attempting to keep Vincent in one piece.

Split and Mix Challenges - Issues of Process and Priority

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-19/kwinana-council/5033288?&section=news

There are some challenges looming for the Local Government Advisory Board given the number of conflicting proposals and, in particular, ones that involve splitting an existing local government.

For example, the Kwinana proposal mentioned here requires that the remainder of Cockburn be merged with another Council.

In the case of Vincent, the Premier has stated that he wants the City of Perth proposal to be dealt with first, but that would leave a large part of Vincent left out - and less likely to be viable, given that the jewels would have been pirated by the City of Perth. So the LGAB cannot assess the City of Perth proposal without effectively requiring (and prejudging) that something else be done with the remainder of Vincent.

And yet there is no proposal from a local government that deals with this. Vincent wants the whole of the City to go into the City of Perth, if abolition of Vincent goes ahead. Stirling has submitted a proposal that does not include any of Vincent.

And if the State Government wants to try to sort this out by making its own proposals to the LGAB, it will be on shaky ground. Once local Councils have made proposals to the LGAB, the Board is bound to deal with them according to process, including formal inquiry with a 6-week opportunity for public submissions, set out in Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act.

In terms of natural justice, the LGAB would need to deal with the Councils' proposals before any 'consolidated proposals' from the State Government.

Moreover, the LGAB may only consider a second proposal in respect of an area if that proposal is not "substantially similar to a proposal on which the Board has made a recommendation to the Minister within the period of 2 years immediately before the proposal is made".

Credit Where Credit's Due

Readers of this blog will be in no doubt that I don't like a lot of what Colin Barnett does nor how he goes about doing it. But there is always the exception - and his reported statement on MPs claiming expenses they are not entitled to is one that I and, I would hope, most people would support.

Contrast this with the 'head in the sand' approach that Tony Abbott appears to be taking federally - although I'm not sure that you can have your head in the sand when your snout's in the trough.

It seems that Don Randall and others who have been caught out lately take the view that, in the words emblazoned on my lawyer daughter's T-shirt, "It's only illegal if you get caught" - and even then they add the caveat that it isn't really illegal if you agree to pay back the money.

Ah! If only life were so simple for the rest of us.

A Case Of Mistaken Identity

I thank Reece Harley for phoning me to apologise for misattributing the remark about City of Perth Councillors being afraid of having to doorknock if they were to have 22,000 extra voters.

He makes a very valid point that it is difficult to doorknock people who live in secure apartment complexes.

But the comment from John Carey was, I believe, aimed at current City of Perth Councillors - they are the ones who have decided they only want the asset-rich, not the people-rich, parts of Vincent. Reece is a fresh voice seeking election and might well have a different view.

Whilst secure complexes are on the increase in Vincent, they are not yet an excuse for the lack of candidate visibility that has characterised this election in Vincent. I live in the South Ward, where there are eight candidates standing for election to two vacancies, but I have only received any election material from one candidate and only seen anything other than a 'vote for me' ad in the Perth Voice about a small number of others.

So, despite my high hopes for a high voter turnout for the plebiscite, the low turnout so far is perhaps not surprising, as candidates don't seem to be very interested in getting elected.

Only A Short Time Left To Vote

With all the activity in Vincent around the proposed forced local government changes, it's disappointing that less than 30% of electors have so far returned their completed ballot papers (including the all-important plebiscite. There's only a few days left to make your voice heard, so vote soon, if you haven't already, and encourage your family, friends and neighbours to vote.

https://www.elections.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/lg-elections/documents/2013%20Ordinary%20Election%20election%20packages.pdf
Click to enlarge

Stirling Doesn't Want Us, Either - but shows a bit of respect

At least the City if Stirling has a reason for not doing that gives us some respect. I don't know why they're so scared of the debt of Beatty Park as it is a long-term viable proposition, but I do understand that they would be peeved at being forced to give up the Terry Tyzak Centre on which they'd spent millions in refurbishment.

But the key thing that differentiates Stirling from Perth is the acknowledgment that Vincent residents don't want to be split between Perth and Stirling. Stirling Mayor, David Boothman, is quoted as saying: "We cannot ignore the views of the Vincent community…" - we can only hope that Colin Barnett takes the same view after the plebiscite that is currently under way.

Guardian Express, 15th October, 2013

Amalgamation Supporters Still Want To Be Able To Vote

Thanks to Malcolm Mummery, Convenor of the Dadour Group, for the link to this item. I particularly like the fact that those people who support amalgamations still want to be able to have a vote on them.

Click this text to watch video

Who Says Bigger Is Better? Not the Community of Noosa

Slipping under the radar - perhaps because it predates the current fracas in Perth - the people of Noosa have been freed from the forced amalgamation into the Sunshine Coast - after an overwhelming 80% vote in favour of de-amalgamation.

I am reminded of what Janette Sadik Khan, New York Transport Commissioner, said recently: The proof is not in the computer model, it is in the real world performance…". Well, the people of Noosa have road-tested the big local government model, compared it with their previous experience, and decided that it doesn't perform for them.

Interesting that this de-amalgamation, recognising the strong views of the community, is under a Liberal state government that is generally regarded as at least as arrogant as that of Colin Barnett here in WA.

Missing the Message?

Lots of fuss (not to mention hot air - however justified) about the pollies' expenses scandals - over which I have a distinct sense of déjà vu, having been in England a lot over the past year or two.

But what, I wonder, is a good Catholic like Tony Abbott doing promoting the Mormons (aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints)?

Come to that, why is he, as Prime Minister (or as Opposition Leader if it's an old picture), acting as a billboard promoting Cadbury over any other brand of chocolate or Pfizer over any other drug manufacturer or Amgen over any other biotech company?

PS I now know that this was, for the companies at least, to do with their sponsorship of Pollie Pedal, Abbott's annual charity fund-raiser which he runs in conjunction with Carers Australia. Good cause, no doubt, but the point still remains that politicians should not be seen to be 'billboards for hire'. And what about conflict of interest if any of these companies wants or is affected by a decision of government?

More Anti-Democratic Moves by Barnett

Click to enlarge

In yet another assault on democracy, Colin Barnett is apparently now proposing, in effect, that all those who do not vote against local government boundary change proposals are in favour of them.

This conflicts with one of the fundamental principles of democratic voting systems, which is that the result is determined by those voting - not by those who do not vote. This is so whether we have first-past-the-post or preferential voting systems.

People may choose not to vote for reasons other than being against a proposal, including their not having strong views either way on the matter. There is also the matter of people being unable to vote for reasons beyond their control.

And we know from experience that a proportion of those who do not vote would, in any case, have cast invalid votes if they had voted.

If Barnett is genuinely concerned to make sure the voices of all electors are heard in the process, then voting in local government elections and referenda should be compulsory - don't simply assume that those who do not vote are of a particular point of view.

Daily Double

Perth Voice, 12th October, 2013. Click to enlarge.

Something I wrote must have touched the right spot with the Editor of the Perth Voice!

Here's hoping the message (if not the blunt expression of it) touches the right spot with the electors of Vincent in the current plebiscite. Remember, ballot papers must reach the Returning Officer by 6pm, Saturday 19th October. If you think you might be late, you can hand-deliver up to and including Saturday 19th October.

Why Recount Only the Donkey Vote?

I am pleased to see that the WA Senate vote is being recounted, given the very slim margin at one stage in the distribution of preferences, but I am forced to ask why this should only be for the 'above the line' votes.

Are the votes of those of us who choose to make an individual choice, rather than leaving it to party apparatchiks, of less importance? We've seen what strange (even ridiculous) outcomes above-the-line voting has achieved, so why give favourable treatment to those who use it?

Does this decision of the Electoral Commissioner create two classes of voter who are treated differently?

Does this partial recount represent discrimination, in that some of us are being denied a voting right extended to others?

Just Two Days Later…

Only two days after my drawing attention to the sinister implications of being able to build houses and (yes!) hotels on the Swan River (as well as Kings Park and other iconic Perth locations) in the new WA version of monopoly, it's already happening.

Not a 'floating hotel' perhaps, but certainly one that sits out over the water.

And who now speaks for the interests of the river? Well, six months ago when the previous application was rejected, it was the Swan River Trust. Less than a week ago, it was reported that the SRT was being abolished and absorbed into a new parks and wildlife department.

Interestingly (in the sense of the ancient Chinese curse - "may you live in interesting times"), whereas both a public service department and the Trust are/were subject to direction by their minister, the Trust had to publish any such directions in its Annual Report. You don't often see a government department publicise the fact that it had been directed by its Minister to make a contentious decision.

Barnett's Secret Agenda Revealed

Whereas the earlier versions of Monopoly use streets or suburbs for locations, the Perth version released today is based on other types of locations. So go to it Sandgropers, you can now build houses and hotels on Kings Park, Cottesloe Beach (well, that seems already to be happening) and Scarborough Beach (ditto) and Rottnest Island (watch those development proposals for Rotto!). And UWA is set to make a killing by selling off 'surplus' land to players or simply charging other players for the privilege of being there (wait, though, isn't that already happening to students?).

And presumably we are set to have houseboats and floating hotels on the Swan River.

Note that 'railroads' includes Perth Buses, Perth Trains, Perth Ferries and Perth Airport. So forget the rail link to the airport (it was never a very good idea anyway) and hop on the (almost non-existent) Transperth bus to the airport, where you'll be able to catch the Greyhound bus to wherever you want to go - as long as it isn't overseas.

Alternatively, just a small deviation to the existing interstate rail line could make Perth Airport the WA destination for the Indian Pacific train - just a few of those airline passengers could help increase the frequency of the Indian-Pacific from its current poxy one train a week (well, twice a week for September and October, perhaps to cash in on the footy finals) - for one of the Great Train Journeys of the World?

You might think all that's a bit far-fetched - now - but just wait. Remember, you read it here first.

Q: When Is A Deadline Not A Deadline?

Answer: When you're not the getting the 'enthusiastic' support you were looking for?

The timetable advertised back in July clearly stated that October 4th was the 'deadline for local government submissions to LGAB'. Just a week ago, Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, in a letter to Mayors, reminded local governments that they had been invited to submit proposals to the Local Government Advisory Board by 4 October 2013.

How, then, can the LGAB Chair say 'on the weekend' (5/6 October) that he believed more proposals were still to be lodged with the Board? Does this indicate that he considers local Councils so inefficient that they miss a clearly-stated deadline? Or is it that there is lobbying to encourage Councils that are either supportive or at least not strongly against the Government's proposals to make a late submission to make the balance of support/opposition look 'better'?

Mind you, we've already seen the September timeline for introduction of legislation to amend the Local Government Act (to remove the electors' right of veto - although the official timetable doesn't actually state that this is what the amendment is about) go by the board because the Premier can't get the support of his party room.

Incidentally, I make the number of Councils making submissions to be 19 not 18. Perhaps the LGAB's arithmetic is on a par with the arguments for amalgamations (most of which we have never seen).

There are 18 actual proposals (two joint ones and Cambridge has put in two), but 19 Councils.

Don't Waste Your Vote

The Weekend West, 5th September, 2013

It seems that some people are not following the instructions on the postal ballot envelopes - this means that their votes are wasted.

Postal voting can seem complex, but the main thing to remember is to ensure that all your ballot papers (including the plebiscite in Vincent) are in the ballot paper envelope, that you sign and date the flap on that envelope and then place it in the addressed reply-paid envelope to mail to the Returning Officer.

Be very sure that you sign and date the flap on the ballot paper envelope and do not remove it - this flap is the evidence that yours is a valid vote and is akin to having your name crossed off the electoral roll at an in-person election.

As Chris Evans, Acting WA Electoral Commissioner, is reported as saying, this is a landmark poll for many Councils and it is vital that votes are not wasted.

If you think you are too late to have your mailed ballot papers received by 6pm on election day (Saturday 19 October, which effectively means Friday 18th October), or you simply don't trust Australia Post, you can hand-deliver the envelope to an electoral officer at the offices of the local government during office hours before election day or the polling place (City of Vincent Administration Centre, cnr Vincent and Loftus Streets, Leederville, in the case of Vincent - follow the gaze of the blue head) between 8.00am and 6.00pm on election day (19th October).

Hubris for the History Books

This piece in The West Australian today, about the splitting of a State in India prompts me to ask the rhetorical question: What would Die Führer's reaction be if the Federal Government were to say it was going to split WA? perhaps because the Pilbara and Kimberley have more in common with the Northern Territory than with the southern parts of WA. Or because the Northern Territory needs more resources to be viable.

Now, I know that there are constitutional reasons why this couldn't happen without a referendum. But why, Col, are you set on denying us the right to have a similar say in respect of your proposed changes to local government?

What are you scared of? If your proposals are so good and in all our long-term interests, surely you should be able to convince sufficient of us of their value and ride to victory and into the history books.

As it is, you will slide into the history books as an exemplar of hubris, a loss of contact with reality and over-estimation of one's own abilities and competence.

Minister Retreats To Bunker

Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, 'did not respond to inquiries' relating to the clear opposition to his and Col Pot's forced amalgamation 'proposals'. Yet he can hardly claim that the responses were unexpected as all of the individual Council responses (or non-responses) have been clearly flagged for some time and, unlike the Government's proposals, have been agreed to in public forums (ie Council meetings).

Little wonder, then, that many local governments (not to mention many of us in the community) have 'lost faith in the process'.

Perhaps he just hopes our loss of faith is so great that if he ignores us we will go away. Well, I've got news for you and your boss, Tony - we're not going away until you consign this poxy pseudo-policy to the dustbin of history where it belongs.

Love the Pun - But It Ain't Funny

Or I could have called this 'Yet Another Broken Promise'. Not that it was quite a promise, but nothing was said in the election campaign about abolishing the Swan River Trust.

And, as a local councillor for over 14 years, I have seen at first hand the cost-shifting that state and federal governments (of both political persuasions) have been up to in the past couple of decades - and this could well be another example. Does Bassendean/Bayswater need a slice of Stirling to help it pay for a larger share of river-related works that Barnett intends to foist on it?

Perth Voice, Saturday 5th October, 2013

Now, There's a Surprise!

The City of Perth Council has formally rejected taking in all of the City of Vincent - no surprise there after recent statements and events. Congratulations, though, to Cr Jim Adamos for at least bringing some logic into the debate in contrast to the 'cherry-picking' approach demonstrated by the Lord Mayor and other City of Perth councillors.

Now, we all need to consider very carefully what this means for the City of Vincent Plebiscite. Colin Barnett has said all of Vincent could go to Perth if the two councils could agree - clearly they cannot. So the only way forward is with a strong vote in favour of not abolishing the City of Vincent (Question 2). As regards Question 1, it now appears to be largely academic, but logic dictates we should still favour the option that keeps all of Vincent together - and stuff the City of Perth and whether it wants all of us or not.

Perth Voice, Saturday 5th October, 2013

Lisa Doesn't Like People Power

Lisa Scaffidi, Lord Mayor of Perth, obviously considers what we in the community think is of no importance - it's all about the bureaucrats and a small number of Council members. 

I am very pleased to see Acting Vincent Mayor, John Carey, giving the lie to Scaffidi's arrogant assertion that you can't do due diligence at the same time as involving the community. I love the vernacular he uses, too - chewing gum and walking at the same time. I guess that sums up the difference between Vincent and Perth - our diversity enables us to multi-task, whereas Perth is all about big business.

Perth Voice, Saturday 5th October 2013

Be warned, members of the Vincent community, this is the sort of approach you'll get to community involvement if we end up in the City of Perth. Vote to retain Vincent in the Plebiscite.

Time To Make Our Collective Mark

This is not an official ballot paper.
The ticks show how I shall be voting.
How you vote will be known only to you.

City of Vincent Council Election and, importantly, Plebiscite ballot papers have started arriving in our mailboxes. As I have previously mentioned on this blog, the plebiscite might be the only real opportunity we get to make our views about the proposed abolition of the City of Vincent clear and unambiguous.

So, whether or not you would normally choose to vote in the Council Election, please vote in the plebiscite. Although the results of the plebiscite are not binding in the way that a vote under Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act would be, if we can get the magic 50% elector turnout it will send an extremely powerful message to Colin Barnett.

Colin Barnett has stated his intention to remove our right to vote on local government amalgamation proposals, although he does seem to be running into increasing opposition from his own party as well as from the communities he seeks to disenfranchise, so this might be your only opportunity to stand up for Vincent and the future of the Vincent community.

If, like me, you would prefer to keep the City of Vincent as it is, then place a tick in the 'No' box for Question 2.

If Vincent were to be abolished, however, as Colin Barnett has threatened, Question 1 allows you to say whether you prefer keeping the Vincent community together in the City of Perth or his model of splitting between Perth and Stirling, effectively destroying the community we have built up over the past two decades.

PS. I'm sure it's not deliberate, but the Plebiscite ballot paper is a little larger than the Councillor or Mayor election ballot papers. However, it will go in the envelope with a bit of pushing and shoving!

Another Barnett Broken Promise

Here we go again. Clear evidence of an election commitment - but now no interest from Die Führer. This is not just a matter of cost to the grain growers, it goes to the heart of sustainable transport (and hence, sustainable regional communities) for Western Australia.

David and Goliath Revisited

There is an interesting piece in the UK Guardian newspaper today describing how the source of the biblical Goliath's size and strength could well have been a serious medical condition called acromegaly, a disease caused by a benign tumour of the pituitary gland. One of the common side-effects of acromegaly is vision problems.

Thus, the Israelites saw an intimidating giant, but the very thing that gave the giant his size was also the source of a great weakness. Malcolm Gladwell in the Guardian, goes on to observe that there is an important lesson for battles with all kinds of giants. The powerful and the strong are not always what they seem.

The successful Davids of this world don't play by the rules expected by the Goliaths. Colin Barnett expected the community ('the little people' as he probably calls us, with scarcely-disguised disdain - not to mention unintended irony) to get so caught up in the many non-sensical details of the proposals for local government changes and his broken promise of 'no forced amalgamations' that we would have neither the energy nor the resources to convert our anger at his proposed perversion of the democratic process into effective action.

What the emperor failed (and still fails) to grasp is that there are literally thousands of us out there who will sling the stones that will fell his grand designs. He has to hold most of the Liberal parliamentarians to his side, whereas we only have to get a few of them to support the democratic rights of their electors - and hence their chances at the next election.

The stones that we sling will be logical arguments made fiery by anger and indignation.

And we all know what happened to Goliath after he was felled by David's stone, don't we!

Précis of Premier's Pillaging

This letter from last week's Subiaco Post speaks for itself and speaks volumes in the process.

Community Gives Voice to Anger

In the heartland of what would be the Western Suburbs mega-council according to Emperor Col, 70-80 mainly Subiaco residents met at the Onslow Park Tennis Club this evening to express their anger at what was being forced on them by a Premier who promised he wouldn't do forced local government amalgamations. They were joined by Heather Henderson, Mayor of Subiaco, and Max Hipkins, Mayor of Nedlands, whose Council last night, at a Special Council Meeting, took the unprecedented step of withdrawing from the WA Local Government Association in protest because it doesn't believe that WALGA is acting in the interests of local government.

Several speakers prefaced their remarks by saying they were lifelong Liberal voters (although one did say he once voted for Bob Hawke) but were devastated by the proposal to remove the Dadour Amendment from the Local Government Act, effectively removing the democratic right of people to determine how they should be governed.

A motion was passed unanimously to oppose any moves to amend, remove or dilute the provisions of the so-called Dadour Amendment.

The meeting was predictably orderly, but there was a real sense of anger at what was being done to local governments and their communities. The more Liberal voters can get the message to their state members of Parliament in the next couple of weeks, the less likely it is that the Dadour Amendment will go - as those Liberal members see their majorities disappearing at the next election.

So write to your members of Parliament in the next week or so. Write to all members of the WA Parliament, if you can. Express your anger at the possible removal or reduction of your only real protection in the Local Government Act.

MPs' contact details are at http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/parliament/memblist.nsf/WAllMembers?openform.

Bullies Can Be Beaten

Bullies can be made to back down, as the latest development in the Gina Rinehart family trust saga demonstrates.

But it does take time. It does take a dedicated opposition. And it does take resources.

The Rinehart family battle gave a lot of money to lawyers.

The community opposition to Colin Barnett's anti-democratic amalgamation of local governments and removal of our right of veto does not have pots of money - but we do have lots of votes. So let's get out there and make our parliamentary representatives, especially those in the Liberal Party, well and truly aware that their tenure in Parliament will be short-lived if they support removal of our democratic rights.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/19199846/the-day-gina-rinehart-finally-blinked

And it will not only be Gina Rinehart "on trial over claims of gross misconduct and dishonesty". Colin Barnett (and his lackey Tony Simpson) will find themselves in that particular dock, as well, at least in the court of public opinion.

Nedlands Dissents

I have written here several times that part of Colin Barnett's strategy is to create discord in local government and then come in as the 'white knight'. The City of Nedlands has broken ranks with WALGA because it doesn't believe that WALGA is truly acting in the interests of local government.

Whatever the truth of it - and WALGA President Troy Pickard's links with the Liberal Party were apparent in WALGA's early insipid response - all of us need to be careful that discord doesn't lead to weakness. Diversity of view and of strategy can be very powerful, but discord can be debilitating.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-02/nedlands-council-pulls-out-of-walga/4993046?section=wa

Protest Against Removal of Democratic Veto Gathering Momentum

There is a public meeting tonight (Wednesday 2nd October, 7.30pm) at the Onslow Park Tennis Club. This has been organised by Subiaco residents but the issue is much bigger than that - it affects all of us. So, if you're concerned at this erosion of democracy, come along tonight. 

Subiaco Post, 28th September 2013. Click to enlarge

Subiaco Post, 28th September 2013. Click to enlarge

The Onslow Park Tennis Club is on Onslow Road, Shenton Park - see map below - it's on the north side of Rosalie Park on the opposite side of Thomas Street from Kings Park.

All Glitter and No Substance

Guardian Express, 2nd October, 2013. Click to enlarge

Lots of pretty colours on the façade of Council House - but no substance to what goes on within.

The Council agenda report and its submission on the local government amalgamations are full of weasel words designed to cover up the fact that it is intent on 'cherry-picking' Vincent's assets.

Alternative to Bottled Water - At Last

Guardian Express, 2nd October, 2013

Back on 18th December 2007, Vincent Council endorsed my notice of motion to minimise the use of bottled water at Council functions and activities, because of the financial and environmental cost of plastic bottles. On 26th February, 2008, officers provided a plan of action that broadly supported the motion but noted that there would be adverse effects on Beatty Park revenue which meant that alternatives would need further investigation.

I am extremely pleased to see that at last, five and a half years later, these investigations have finally borne fruit.