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.
There is a rally outside Parliament House at 7pm on Tuesday 8th April. The more people there, the stronger the message - but this is just the start.
Loud voices raised together in protest at Colin Barnett's denial of democracy will be needed if he is to hear us. In a slight rewriting of the 1964 civil rights protest song:
They destroy us without blinking They shot Vincent* in the back. Did you say it wasn't proper, Did you stand upon the track?
You were quiet just like mice,
Now you say we aren't nice,
And if that's Freedom's price,
We don't mind.
* Substitute your own community name as you wish.
Now is the time not to be quiet but to be heard - our own Eureka Stockade moment.
Emperor Col Pot is trying to force on us local governments that we do not want. Revolutions have been sparked by this type of imperial arrogance.
If we are denied the right to a say in how we are governed, those local governments will have no legitimacy. Perhaps it's time to start thinking about how each of us as individuals might respond if the worst comes to the worst.
All protest movements should have a song. I have already drawn attention to its being the 50th anniversary of the civil rights movement song "It Isn't Nice". Amazing how few changes to the words (highlighted below) are needed to make it current. Where I've put 'Vincent' in the second-last verse, you could put any of the 30 metropolitan local council names (except, probably, Serpentine-Jarrahdale, which is a bit long) - at a big rally, you could have people sing the council of their choice, which would be really powerful. Does anyone know a folkie who could record a passionate version for the present day protests about forced local government amalgamations?
It isn't nice to block
the doorway,
It isn't nice to go to jail,
There are nicer ways to do it,
But the nice ways always fail.
It isn't nice, it isn't nice,
You told us once, you told us twice,
But if that's Freedom's price,
We don't mind.
It isn't nice to carry
banners
Or to sit in on the floor,
Or to shout our cry of Freedom
At the parliamentary store.
It isn't nice, it isn't nice,
You told us once, you told us twice,
But if that's Freedom's price,
We don't mind.
Now we tried
negotiations
And the token picket line,
Mr. Barnett didn't
see us
And he might as well be blind.
When you deal with men of ice,
You can’t deal in ways so nice
But if that's
Freedom's price,
We don't mind.
Theydestroyuswithoutblinking
They shot Vincent in the back.
Did you say it wasn't
proper,
Did you stand upon the track?
You were quiet just like mice,
Now you say we aren't nice,
And if that's Freedom's price,
We don't mind.
It isn't nice to block
the doorway,
It isn't nice to go to jail,
There are nicer ways to do it
But the nice ways always fail.
It isn't nice, it isn't nice,
But thank you Colin for your advice,
‘Cos if that’s Freedom's price,
We don't mind.
Western Australia has 59 members of the Legislative Assembly, one for every 42,000 people. Forty-two of these represent electorates in the Perth Metropolitan Area - 40% more than there are local governments, currently, and nearly three times as many as the number of local governments proposed by Messrs Barnett and Simpson.
This is confusing for local governments and their communities. Some have to share an MLA with neighbouring communities and others have more than one MLA to represent them, but only in conjunction with other local governments/ communities that are also part of their electorates.
It is also unfair on local communities, as few, if any, have the undivided attention of any single MLA, and unfair on MLAs who have to balance the sometimes-competing demands of different communities they represent.
So, Mr Premier, what if we were to reduce, or even remove, this confusion and unfairness, by aligning Legislative Assembly electorate boundaries with local government boundaries - then we could reduce the number of metropolitan MLAs from 42 to 30 (currently) or even to 15 (with your proposals).
Country electorates would, of course, remain unchanged, Mr Premier, as we wouldn't want to upset your coalition partners - just as you have exempted them from the unfair and discriminatory provisions of the Local Government Amendment Bill currently before the Legislative Council in order to buy their acquiescence in this appalling attempt to promote your ideological agenda.
So then we would end up with 47 or 32 MLAs.
Would this be a good or a bad thing? I really don't know, Mr Premier, but then you haven't given us any evidence that you know about whether reducing the number of metropolitan local governments to an arbitrary 50% of their current number is a good thing or not. All you have done is assert, without providing evidence, that it is a good thing.
I suspect the outcome would be that the business of the Executive would be streamlined and simplified but that MLAs would be less connected to the communities they are required to represent. Whether this is good or bad probably depends on whether you are a member of the Executive (the WA Cabinet currently has 17 members) or the community (around 2.5 million).
Weight of numbers might be against you, Mr Premier.
Why am I poking my nose into government business, you might ask. The answer, friends, lies in the words of Woody Guthrie, sung by his son, Arlo Guthrie at 3:10 in the video below.
For those without the time or inclination to listen, here are the words: As I was walkin' - I saw a sign there And that sign said - no tress passin' But on the other side .... it didn't say nothin! Now that side was made for you and me! Democracy and government belong to each of us and all of us. For governments to exclude us from the process is the antithesis of democracy.
Really pleased (and proud) to get the second position (after the continuing saga of the search for Malaysian Airlines flight MH370) on the ABC News tonight.
More important, though, was the serious reporting of a serious issue.
The current form of local government so-called reform proposals has arisen entirely because Colin Barnett couldn't get removal of the Dadour poll provision through his own party room. Where are all those Liberal Members of Parliament now? With a few notable exceptions they have been silent about the Emperor's seeking to achieve by deceit what he couldn't achieve by argument and logic.
In 1964, Malvina Reynolds wrote the song "It Isn't Nice". Written about the US civil rights movement, the words have always resonated with me and could be the reason I'm so angry about the injustice of the Barnett/Simpson bullying of local governments and communities.
This Judy Collins version (recorded in concert at Town Hall, New York, March 21, 1964) was on one of the first 'serious' vinyl LPs I bought when I went to university - and I still have it - and a turntable to play it on.
It Isn't Nice
Notes: words and music by Malvina Reynolds; copyright 1964 Schroder Music Company, renewed 1993. This original version of the song was banned from the radio in Japan--in Japanese, but not in English!
It isn't nice to block the doorway,
It isn't nice to go to jail,
There are nicer ways to do it,
But the nice ways always fail.
It isn't nice, it isn't nice,
You told us once, you told us twice,
But if that is Freedom's price,
We don't mind.
It isn't nice to carry banners
Or to sit in on the floor,
Or to shout our cry of Freedom
At the hotel and the store.
It isn't nice, it isn't nice,
You told us once, you told us twice,
But if that is Freedom's price,
We don't mind.
We have tried negotiations
And the three-man picket line,
Mr. Charlie didn't see us
And he might as well be blind.
Now our new ways aren't nice
When we deal with men of ice,
But if that is Freedom's price,
We don't mind.
How about those years of lynchings
And they shot Medgar in the back?
Did you say it wasn't proper,
Did you stand upon the track?
You were quiet just like mice,
Now you say we aren't nice,
And if that is Freedom's price,
We don't mind.
It isn't nice to block the doorway,
It isn't nice to go to jail,
There are nicer ways to do it
But the nice ways always fail.
It isn't nice, it isn't nice,
But thanks for your advice,
Cause if that is Freedom's price,
We don't mind.
I wouldn't expect Colin Barnett, at this stage, to say anything other than that he didn't think a legal challenge would succeed. It will be interesting to see whether he or Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, feel the same after viewing the basis for challenge.
And his urging local government 'to look forward rather than back' sounds awfully like yet more bullying - I have heard that local councils have been threatened that if they resist forced amalgamations the Minister would appoint Commissioners and dismiss Councils. Local Governments should not fall for this bluff - the Local Government Act provides for commissioners to be appointed only under certain very specific circumstances (paras 2.6(4), 2.36A(3), 2.37(4), 8.30 and 8.33) none of which could possibly apply in these circumstances.
It is not my wish to take this all the way to litigation, but if that's what it takes, if Barnett and Simpson are determined to destroy democratic processes in this state, so be it.
Good to see the state Opposition waking up, as they have been conspicuously missing in action so far.
Great letter from Margaret Cala. The only thing I'd say is that one wakes from dreams and nightmares - if we don't demolish Barnett/Simpson's house of cards, the only respite we get will be when we are asleep.
My thanks to Cr Mel Congerton, Chair of the Local Government Advisory Board, who phoned me in response to an email I sent him about the conflict of interest issue. He assured me that the Board was operating entirely in accordance with Schedule 2.5, cl 8, para 7 of the Local Government Act (which states: (7) Subject to any order under subclause (8), a member is disqualified from acting where the matter being considered or inquired into by the Advisory Board is a matter relating to a local government of which the member is a member, employee or elector.) and that no Board members had participated in deliberations or consultations affecting an area where the member is an elected member, employee or elector. I was less reassured by what he said in respect of the systematic conflict of interest of the Board member and deputy who represent the Department of Local Government and Communities, which he said was dealt with in the Act. However, I have been unable to find any such provision in the Act. Cr Congerton promised to email the reference to me - watch this blog for updates. When you look at the Local Government Act, it might also be that the Chair of the LGAB also has a systematic conflict of interest with respect to the Minister's proposals (and other proposals that complement or conflict with them) as the Chair is appointed solely on the nomination of the Minister. As I have previously stated in this blog ('Conflicts of Interest?'), in drawing attention to this, I am not in any way implying any lack of integrity in any of the members of the LGAB. I am merely drawing attention to clear conflicts of interest and expressing the hope that these will be dealt with in the same open and transparent way as is required of local governments themselves.
In his second reading speech on the Local Government Amendment Bill, currently before the Legislative Council, the Minister for Local Government said: As a result of the planned metropolitan reforms, the Advisory Board will soon be required to deal with a large number of proposals relating to local government reform. The Bill will provide the Board with the ability to hold combined inquiries where two or more proposals are related.
This is contained in section 12 of the Bill, which introduces a new clause 4A to Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act, 1995.
This implies that the LGAB does not currently have the ability to hold combined inquiries and, since the Bill is still in the Parliament and there is no provision for this to be retroactive, the 34 proposals currently before the Board will have to be dealt with individually. This will make it virtually impossible for the Board to consider any but the Minister's proposals, as most others are not mutually compatible, having inconsistencies and overlaps - and if the Board were to make a recommendation on one of them it would have implications in terms of judging others.
Does this mean that the LGAB could dismiss most, if not all, of the non-Ministerial proposals on the grounds that it does not have the legal ability to consider them properly?
If so, has the LGAB been negligent or in breach of the Act in accepting these proposals for consideration?
Even allowing for 'form' submissions, that's a lot of submissions for the Local Government Advisory Board to 'consider' as required by the Local Government Act. According to the announced timeline, the LGAB is due to report to the Minister by the end of June 2014 - ie it has just over three months to undertake its considerations.
If, say, half the submissions are form submissions and can be dealt with expeditiously (but without downplaying their value), that leaves the LGAB having to consider 200 individual submissions a day.
The complexity of the proposals, including overlaps and contradictions, makes this a daunting task and one I do not envy the LGAB for having.
Where, however, does this leave the 'late' proposals submitted as part of the submission process, including those from the City of Subiaco? The LGAB cannot consider them as part of this current process, as they have not been put out for the required six weeks for submissions - nor, surely, can it put them out for submissions while it is considering proposals that have already attracted 25,000 submissions.
The late Tony Benn, doyen or destroyer (depending on your point of view) of the Labour left in the United Kingdom, famously asked five questions of the powerful.
Messrs Barnett and Abbott would do well to ponder these questions (especially the first three) and reflect on their arrogant behaviour, for many are already reflecting on the fourth and will, at the earliest possible opportunity, provide our own answers to the fifth.
Mr Simpson also praised the 16 local governments who are pressing ahead with reform by forming local implementation committees, made up of elected members and senior management from two or more local governments involved in a possible merger to drive the transition process.
Note the use of the word 'merger'- not boundary adjustment! Could this be a turning point in the argument over how the proposed changes have been specified in the government proposals to evade the Dadour poll provisions?
It is to be hoped that the Minister realises that Local Governments not on this list are not necessarily trying to subvert his process. I understand that the City of Vincent has been trying to set up a local implementation committee with the City of Perth, but has been rebuffed - partly on the not unreasonable grounds that there are at least two very different proposals still being assessed.
Local Government Minister, Tony 'Homer' Simpson, accuses Councils of spreading "blatant lies" and "scaremongering".
This is in obvious contrast to the total lack of any information from the WA Government on the reasons for or the costs and benefits of the various local government amalgamations (or 'boundary adjustments') it is attempting to force on local communities.
Does it not even occur to the Minister that a modicum of 'correct' information would show up the 'blatant lies' for what they are?
Apparently it does not. Homer prefers that we take the Government's case on trust and his assertion of Council "lies" with blind faith.
Or could it be that the statements from Councils and others are not lies after all.
I have been to quite a few community meetings on proposed amalgamations and have been presented with information that certainly appears credible. If Homer wants to convince me that this information is "lies" and "scaremongering", he needs to do more than simply say so.
At most of these meetings, person after person has stood up and said, in one way or another, "I am a life-long Liberal voter, but there is no way I'll be voting Liberal at the next State election". Even if Barnett and Simpson don't care about this, others in the Liberal and National Parties ought to, if they value their political futures. Now is the time for them to stand up and be counted, before this house of cards collapses around them.
Whilst it was good to see the turnout at the 'Town Hall Meeting' on Sunday 9th March, I was disappointed that there was no opportunity for input from the community. Town Hall Meetings, almost by definition, should be meetings rather than orations. To the best of my knowledge, there is an expectation that attendees generally may voice their opinions and ask questions at a Town hall Meeting. I know, from talking with others after the meeting, that I was not the only one to feel this way. I enjoyed Mayor John Carey's impassioned pleas - and was pleased to see that the option of retaining Vincent as it is was back on the agenda and is included in the Vincent website where it provides information to assist people to make comments on the various proposals.
I wasn't impressed with former Mayor Alannah MacTiernan, who still seems to be finding it difficult to overcome her vociferous opposition to the creation of Vincent in 1994 - and hasn't caught up with the clear message from the community - Keep Vincent Alive.
The Local Government Advisory Board, in its infinite (lack of ) wisdom, has added two new Subiaco proposals (one of which affects Vincent) to its list of proposals to be considered. These proposals were not approved by Subiaco Council until 13th February and the specific one affecting the City of Vincent (by seeking incorporation into the City of Perth's proposal) was described as being made "under perceived duress" - so I'm not sure how serious it was.
This particular proposal could have the benefit of triggering the Dadour poll provision, but for that very reason is unlikely to be recommended by the LGAB. In which case it is simply an exercise in muddying the waters.
The LGAB does state that the process from here would "include the opportunity for the public to make submissions to the Board on the new proposals", but I am concerned that this is likely to slip under most people's radar.
I guess comments should basically be the same as for the City of Perth's proposal, with the added comment that the City of Subiaco had not discussed this with the City of Vincent or the Vincent community.
Yet another example of confused process. The LGAB stated a closing date for proposals - I would have thought the LGAB should assess the proposals it already has rather than adding to them in this ad hoc way.
It is quite possible that having additional proposals, not previously even suggested, might affect the submissions people have made on the original proposals.
And can the LGAB possibly start to assess other proposals affecting Subiaco, Vincent or Perth until after the closure of the comment period on this new Subiaco proposal?
Is there now a new 'closing date' for proposals? Or can we simply keep adding proposal after proposal?
Should the City of Vincent put in a new proposal that is simply 'Hands Off Vincent', which we know is the preferred option of those electors who voted in the plebiscite?
If the Local Government Advisory Board were a local government, members would have to declare an interest and not participate in debate or voting on proposals affecting or raised by their specific local governments or by their employer. I am hoping this is the case for the LGAB as well. This could lead to some interesting shuffling of seats. In some instances, they might not even have a quorum. In drawing attention to this, I am not in any way implying any lack of integrity in any of the members of the LGAB. I am merely drawing attention to clear conflicts of interest and expressing the hope that these will be dealt with in the same open and transparent way as is required of local governments themselves. The LGAB Chairman, Cr Mel Congerton, is a Councillor for the City of Swan - and should, therefore, not participate in debate or voting on the following proposals:
1
Shire of Mundaring
2
City of Swan and Town of Bassendean
6
City of Bayswater
8
City of Belmont
15
Shire of Kalamunda
03/2013
Minister for Local Government - Bayswater/Bassendean
04/2013
Minister for Local Government - Swan/Mundaring
05/2013
Minister for Local Government - Belmont/Kalamunda
The two LGAB members from the Department of Local Government and Communities should not participate in debate or vote on any of the proposals from the Minister for Local Government, to whom they are ultimately responsible, nor on any of the alternative proposals addressing all or part of the same local governments. DLGC staff do not normally have a conflict of interest, as proposals have come from local governments rather than from the Minister, but this situation is clearly exceptional.
Mayor Ron Yurevich and his deputy, Cr Karen Chapple, are from non-metropolitan local governments so have no apparent conflicts of interest.
Cr Helen Dullard is the President of the Shire of Mundaring - and should not participate in debate or vote on the following proposals:
1
Shire of Mundaring
2
City of Swan and Town of Bassendean
04/2013
Minister for Local Government - Swan/Mundaring
Cr Dullard's deputy, Cr Richard Smith, is Deputy Mayor of the City of Rockingham - and should not participate in debate nor vote on the following proposal:
21
Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale
Dr Shayne Silcox is CEO of the City of Melville and takes the prize for the most conflicts of interest (other than the DLGC representatives) - and should not participate in debate nor vote on the following proposals:
7
City of Canning
9
City of Melville (1)
10
City of Melville (2)
12
City of Fremantle
18
City of Gosnells
07/2013
Minister for Local Government - Canning/Gosnells
08/2013
Minister for Local Government - Melville
09/2013
Minister for Local Government - Fremantle/East Fremantle
10/2013
Minister for Local Government - Cockburn/Kwinana
E1
Cockburn Community Steering Committee
Shayne Silcox's deputy, Mark Chester, is CEO of the Shire of Dardanup and has no apparent conflicts of interest.
In the immortal (if somewhat depressing) words of Leonard Cohen, Everybody Knows.
Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows that the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That's how it goes
Everybody knows
Everybody knows that the boat is leaking
Everybody knows that the captain lied
Everybody got this broken feeling
Like their father or their dog just died
The real question is why so few feel able to act. Perhaps LC is right - we've all got "this broken feeling" - but if we don't stand up to be counted we connive at our own demise.
Last night, I attended a rally at the City of Canning. I'm very bad at estimating numbers, but for what it's worth I'd say there were 600 or so people there - Canning citizens who care about the future of their City.
I was very impressed at the way in which the Commissioner for the City of Canning, Lynton Reynolds, acknowledged his personal view that some local government reform through amalgamation was desirable but said this had to be subservient to the oath he swore when taking office, which was to faithfully serve the people of the district.
Commissioners often get a bad rap - including from me - but credit where credit is due. Thank you, Lynton, from those of us elsewhere, for having the integrity to tell it like it is.
I don't agree with his assessment that there is no chance of a plebiscite - there is much water to run under that particular bridge yet.
But whatever one's views on amalgamations as such, the information provided by the Commissioner and the CEO, Lyn Russell, makes it clear that dismemberment of the City of Canning makes no sense in the Government's own stated terms - as it stands, the City of Canning meets all the stated criteria for size, financial viability and sustainability, so why split it into four with each part going to a different Council?
Lynton used the analogy of a hostile company takeover, as I have done previously on this blog. In this case, he described it as a hostile takeover by a consortium of four other local governments. In the corporate world, the proponents of the takeover would have to provide clear information about the effects of the takeover - but there has been no such information in this case. It would then be for the Board of the target company to recommend whether shareholders accept or reject the bid. The Commissioner's judgement was clearly stated: that the takeover bid be rejected.
Perhaps the most telling arguments came from the people of Canning themselves. Canning has developed a very hands-on approach to community services, especially aged care and disability services - very different from any of the local governments that could takeover parts of the City. People who rely on these services are vulnerable and are rightly fearful of what their future might be if they are (a) split up and (b) absorbed by a local government with a different philosophy.
Scott Ludlum made a once-in-a-lifetime speech in the Senate yesterday. Unfortunately only one other senator was there, but the video has gone viral (over 360,000 views at the time of writing). I encourage you to watch it and listen carefully.
Why is this important in the context of this blog? you might ask.
Well, it's important because it's about the future - about our future and our community's future. It's about respect - for people and process. It's about values. And it's about our responsibility to create a sustainable future for ourselves and our children.
It's important because the only political party that has consistently stood up for the rights of individuals and communities to have a say in the future of their local governments has been the Greens WA.
It's important because most of the Abbott traits Scott talks about can equally be used to describe Colin Barnett - especially arrogance and evidence-denial.
At rallies and meetings during the so-called local government reform process, I have heard speaker after speaker say "I am a life-long Liberal voter, but I will not be voting Liberal at the next State election". By their arrogance and intransigence, both Barnett and Abbott have alienated an incredibly large part of the 'liberal-conservative' vote.
So I am confident, along with Scott, that this government is a purely temporary phenomenon - at both federal and state levels.
I am sure you will not be surprised to hear than I am extremely disappointed that the information on the flier for Sunday's Town Hall Meeting is not consistent with Council's own position nor the motion passed at the last Council meeting (25th February), which stated:
"Ensure such information [on the website, admittedly, but the principle surely applies here, too] reflects the City’s position on amalgamation from 5 November 2013 and overwhelming majority view on the plebiscite of 19 October 2013 for Vincent to remain its own Local Government entity."
The Council resolution of 5 November 2013 "recognisedthe local community’s first preference, based on the results of the City of Vincent plebiscite (held on 19 October 2013) and ongoing community feedback, that the City of Vincent remain as its own local government entity".
The first point in the box of 'submission points' on the flier should, therefore, be along the lines of 'Keep Vincent as it is' - not only on the basis of community views but also because no substantial arguments have been made for it to disappear. The points already there should, correspondingly, be qualified with the words 'If Vincent is not kept as a separate local government…'.
I am concerned that Vincent Council has fallen into the trap of passive negativity by focussing on what it regards as achievable rather than what the community really wants. If submissions to the LGAB simply state what is on the flier, the best outcome achievable is that the whole of Vincent merges with Perth as equals. Whilst this is a better outcome than that proposed by the State Government, it is not the preferred outcome of the Vincent Community.
And for those who still maintain that the community's preferred outcome is not achievable, I simply say "If you don't ask, you won't get".
God (or someone) help us - for we truly live in interesting times (as the ancient Chinese curse goes).
On top of the heavy workload of a Premier, not to mention keeping the pressure on Local Government Minister, Tony 'Homer' Simpson, on local government amalgamation, Col Pot is now taking on two of the biggest portfolios in government.
I wonder if this says more about Barnett's egomania or the lack of capability in the rest of the Liberal and National Parties.
And is there more behind the Buswell 'personal leave' than we are being told?
Personally, I'd like to wish Troy Buswell all the best - and hope he gets back into the ministerial saddle soon - as he has been one of the few performers in this shambles of a government.
Away from the stresses of local government forced amalgamations, it has been a real joy to see the Hyde Park Fair back to what it should be this year. Not so long ago, the Fair had descended in to commercialism, but this year there was a great community feel about it. Thanks to all at the North Perth Rotary Club.
The atmosphere was no doubt helped by the fact that, for the first time in years, there was actually a reasonable amount of water in the lakes - and this despite record-low summer rainfall.
Congratulations to the City of Vincent for the vast improvement. A cooling breeze across the park worked well, too, but I wouldn't give Vincent the credit for that.
The layout of the Fair also contributed, as most stalls were set out around the lake and on only the lakeside of the path. This made it much easier to walk around, as there was less need for people to cross the path, and it also had a much more open feel to it.
Well done to the parents of Perth College who ran a secondhand bookstall with all proceeds going to the Sunshine House Orphanage in Cambodia. With good quality books at just one dollar, my resolve not to put even more pressure on my already-groaning bookshelves was overcome.
Also good to see the Greens there - apparently the only party that sees community events such as this as a worthwhile way of relating to the community. I had a long chat with Robin Chapple, MLC for the Mining and Pastoral Region. Local government is one of Robin's policy areas and he assured me that the Greens were not at all happy with the government's approach to local government amalgamations - and that cracks were appearing in the government ranks - but that no one was willing to cross the floor and vote against the Local Government Amendment Bill - beats me how you can speak against a Bill and then vote for it.
Congratulations to our newly-elected Vincent Councillor, James Peart, although I fear it is somewhat of a poisoned chalice he has won.
James will have to come to grips quickly with some very important and difficult issues, and I wish him all the best.
The low turnout is rather a worry, although I guess that the people of WA are getting weary of elections - and there is yet another one in just over a month.
This is the fifth of five posts that will carry my submissions to the Local Government Advisory Board. I publish them in the hope that they will help others make informed submissions
It is important that we comment on all five proposals that affect Vincent, to ensure that none of the proposals goes by default, but also because each is an opportunity to state that our preferred outcome is for Vincent to remain as it is.
This is the fourth of five posts that will carry my submissions to the Local Government Advisory Board. I publish them in the hope that they will help others make informed submissions
It is important that we comment on all five proposals that affect Vincent, to ensure that none of the proposals goes by default, but also because each is an opportunity to state that our preferred outcome is for Vincent to remain as it is.
This is the third of five posts that will carry my submissions to the Local Government Advisory Board. I publish them in the hope that they will help others make informed submissions
It is important that we comment on all five proposals that affect Vincent, to ensure that none of the proposals goes by default, but also because each is an opportunity to state that our preferred outcome is for Vincent to remain as it is.
.tiff)
.jpg)
