People Have The Power

The Communities Action Alliance is a reminder to me and, I hope, to others that there are people who care and are willing to do something about issues they believe are important.

Some people know that I am a great fan of 1960s protest songs, but I just came across a song from 1988 that says things to me about how this issue has galvanised people into action and re-awoken the belief that "People Have The Power".

Performed by Patti Smith

Sample lyrics below. I particularly like the lines about "the power to dream, to rule/to wrestle the earth from fools". And notice how the chorus morphs from 'people have the power' to 'we have the power' - powerful stuff.

Well I was dreamin' in my dreamin'
God knows a pure view
As I lay down into my sleepin'
And I commit my dream with you

People have the power
People have the power
People have the power
People have the power

The power to dream, to rule
To wrestle the earth from fools
But it's decreed the people rule
But it's decreed the people rule

Listen, I believe everythin' we dream
Can come to pass through our union
We can turn the world around
We can turn the earth's revolution

We have the power
People have the power
People have the power
People have the power

The power to dream, to rule
To wrestle the earth from fools
But it's decreed the people rule
But it's decreed the people rule

We have the power
We have the power
People have the power
We have the power

Writer(s): Fred Smith, Patti Smith
Copyright: Druse Music Inc., Stratium Music Inc.

Community Stirring Highlights Minister's Lack of Understanding

Congratulations to the Communities Action Alliance for mixing it with the Minister and then getting out there into the media world. The third paragraph of their media release raises some very important and disturbing questions:

1. Why did the Minister initiate local government change proposals without a business case or, at the very least, a clear indication of their costs and benefits?

2. How can the Local Government Advisory Board make a reasonable assessment of amalgamation proposals if the proponent has not provided a business case?

3. How can the Local Government Advisory Board make recommendations on proposals if it does not look at costs and benefits during the assessment process?

These questions are disturbing because the words from the Minister's own lips call into question the legality, as well as the morality, of the Government's whole process.

Our Opportunity To Have Our Say

After being talked down to so far in the amalgamation process, we now have an opportunity to say what we think - at the Special Meeting of Electors being held on Monday 9th June at 6pm.

This meeting was called by concerned electors, not by Vincent Council, but thanks are due to Mayor John Carey for scheduling this meeting sooner than the 35 days from receipt of the petition specified in the Local Government Act.

There will be an opportunity to move motions that, if passed at the meeting, must be considered by Council at its next meeting.

Some Evidence For Once

Thanks to Jeremy Mowe for drawing attention to a report ('Getting It Right: Structural Change in Perth Local Government') commissioned by the City of Subiaco by one of Australia's leading academics in the field of local government amalgamation.

http://subiaco.wa.gov.au/CityofSubiaco/media/City-of-Subiaco/Your-council/Local%20government%20reform/Getting-It-Right-Structural-Change-in-Perth-Local-Government-May-2014.pdf

The report concluded:

By far the main lesson which has emerged from this analysis is the fact that the processes underpinning amalgamation have a decisive effect on whether or not it has proven successful. In essence, where council mergers and boundary changes are forced upon local communities with minimal consultation and limited local community participation, this leads to ongoing bitterness and division in the affected local communities, which could have lasting effects, including ultimate de-amalgamation. 

Under the Local Government Act 1995, in Western Australia the LGAB is required to examine amalgamation/boundary change proposals in terms of nine criteria: ‘community of interests’;’ physical and topographic features’; demographic trends’; ‘economic factors’; ‘history of the area’; ‘transport and communications’; ‘matters affecting the viability of local governments’; the ‘effective delivery of services’; and ‘any other matters it considers relevant’. However, in the light of hard-won experience in other Australian local government systems which have had ill-conceived and expensive council amalgamations and – in some instances – de-amalgamations, it is evident that the LGAB criteria are not adequate. …the LGAB should also take into account additional criteria, including that proposed amalgamations must enjoy demonstrated local community backing through a poll, the transaction and transformation costs of amalgamation must be minimised, and potential sources of conflict must be eliminated as far as possible. 

Some interesting quotes from that report.

The most important of these policy lessons centres on demonstrating through polls, referenda, and other formal measures that strong support exists in affected local communities for any amalgamation proposal. If mergers are forced upon local communities, then amalgamation can fail with disastrous consequences. 

The bulk of empirical literature is decidedly sceptical on the efficacy of compulsory amalgamation in improving the performance of local government.

The claimed scale economies, cost savings and other pecuniary benefits purportedly flowing from amalgamations are largely illusory, with cost savings attached to only two of the ten main local government functions.

Hasty and poorly planned amalgamations, which do not involve adequate consultation, will result in poor outcomes and disaffected communities.

Well-organised grassroots campaigns can achieve significant outcomes, such as de-amalgamation.

Local residents everywhere resent having compulsory council consolidation forced upon them. People value ‘local voice’ and ‘local choice’ and are thus naturally unhappy when higher tiers of government arbitrarily impose forced amalgamation upon their communities.

A successful amalgamation (Onkaparinga in South Australia) ‘did not involve a significant overall reduction in councillor numbers, with the new council having 20 councillors initially in nine wards and a popularly elected Mayor’, and the result was ‘little change in the level of representation’. 

Given the astonishing ‘about face’ (on forced amalgamations) by the Queensland Government, the speed with which the Reform Commission process was completed, and the concomitantly constrained opportunities for community consultation, it is hardly surprising that the forced amalgamation program provoked a wave of public disquiet. 

Empirical evidence paints a depressing picture … pre-and post-amalgamation scale economies in Queensland showed that the compulsory merger program had increased the proportion of Queensland residents in councils operating with diseconomies of scale to 84%. Similarly, a Queensland Treasury Corporation analysis of the costs of amalgamation showed that the process had been far more costly than expected.

Structural change processes can have decisive positive effects, provided they are inclusive, participatory and voluntary. 

Policy makers should be mindful that amalgamating small councils (or parts of councils) with much larger and potentially dominant councils is likely to provoke political resistance to a merger from smaller neighbours, whose residents naturally fear ‘domination’ by the larger council. 

State governments would be wise to only support a proposed amalgamation and attendant boundary changes if it enjoyed a demonstrated degree of political support in the affected local communities prior to petitions and referenda. 

When Is A Forced Amalgamation Not A Forced Amalgamation?

At the 8th April rally, Opposition Leader Mark McGowan quoted Colin Barnett's assurance that his government would not force amalgamations of local governments.

There has been much argument about whether the WA Government so-called local government reform proposals are 'forced amalgamations' and hence in contravention of the promise made by Colin Barnett before the last election.

Most of this has focussed on the 'forced' part, which the proposals, with the exception of that for the Western Suburbs, clearly are.

Col Pot and Homer have vehemently denied that their proposals are 'forced amalgamations' but have rarely, if ever, clarified why this is so.

Could it be that they are relying on their own descriptions in 11 of the 12 proposals, that they consist of 'boundary adjustments' with 'just' one Council being 'abolished' - no mention here of 'amalgamation'. although that is the clear outcome.

For example, the Government proposal for Perth/Vincent should be:
- boundary adjustment to Perth (UWA, QEII and surrounds; Burswood);
- boundary adjustment to Vincent (loss of riverside Banks area); and
- amalgamation of the adjusted Perth and Vincent Councils.

This correct description would trigger the Dadour poll provision - and that is what scares Barnett and Simpson.

Maintain The Rage

It's a long fight - and can be difficult to sustain the energy necessary to support the outrage. For those who are finding it difficult to maintain the rage - and for the rest of us, too - I offer Ike Nielson's video of the 8th April rally outside Parliament House.

For me, it's a reminder of what I missed (I was overseas when the rally was held) and confirmation of the outrage felt - then and now - by so many.

Literary Condemnation

It isn't often that the immortal bard (William Shakespeare) is deliberately misquoted to great effect in a newspaper headline, but the Post Newspaper has certainly pulled it off this week - perhaps even better than the Editor thought, if you read the full quotation from Hamlet.

The full quotation is of the Ghost, commenting on his own death:
Murder most foul as in the best it is
But this most foul, strange and unnatural

There is, indeed, something most strange and unnatural about the combined obsession of Messrs Barnett and Simpson with their local government so-called reform.

Out of the Mouths of Babes?

Well, I doubt that anyone has ever called Rob Johnson, the disaffected Liberal MLA for Hillarys, a babe, but he does have a reputation for calling a spade a bloody shovel these days, without fear or favour for the party of which he is a member.

Here's the latest - from the Budget debate.
The government has taken measures in some areas to try to rein in expenditure, yet it is still spending tens of millions of dollars in non-essential areas. One of those areas is, of course, the forced amalgamations of metropolitan local governments. There are two things to consider here. The first is: can we afford to allocate tens of millions of dollars at this time, when we are in such a serious financial position, to something that neither the public nor, indeed, the local councils, have called for and in fact were promised would never happen? 

Distrust and Cynicism Will Be Your Real Legacy, Minister

Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, is surely indulging in wishful thinking when he says that 'local government reform will be his legacy'.

Whether or not he manages to bully his changes through, his legacy will be increased distrust of politicians (and their promises) and, to the detriment of all of us, a future of politicians perverting legal and political processes to suit their ideological agendas.

Guardian Express, 20th May 2014

Better Late Than Never

Welcome to the 14 Mayors in the Council for Democracy group who are at last considering legal action. But the action has to be about more than the costs - Ken Travers had it right when he was speaking in the Legislative Council last week - it's about the legality of the process.

What Benefits, Minister? Again

Yet more evidence that Barnett and Simpson will simply deny by ignoring it.

Cambridge Post, 17th May 2014

What Benefits, Minister?

In his interview on the 7.30 Report on the ABC last night, Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, for the first time put a figure on the benefits of his proposed local government 'reform'. He said they would amount to $75 million over three years, with ongoing benefits after that.

Information Vacuum

What he didn't say was (a) how those benefits were calculated or (b) to what extent those benefits could be achieved by other means such as regional groupings of councils to provide shared services.

He didn't, however, come clean on the cost side, including who pays.

And those costs have to include the costs local governments and communities have already borne as a direct result of the confrontational, arbitrary and inconsistent process so far.

Now if the Minister would provide us with that sort of information we might be able to have a halfway-sensible debate about the pros and cons of the government's proposed forced amalgamations.

The Devil Is In The (Lack Of) Detail

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/17

I have previously drawn attention on this blog to the extraordinary lack of information and justification in the Minister for Local Government's proposals for local government changes. It seems that this is fast becoming a characteristic of right-wing governments in Australia.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature has criticised the Abbott government's proposed removal of 74,000 hectares of Tasmanian forest from world heritage protection for providing 'relatively scant information' to support its case and said the way the boundaries had been drawn for the proposed excision appeared 'somewhat arbitrary'.

Does that sound familiar?

If governments of whatever political flavour don't do the hard work to present logical proposals and provide substantial justification for them, are they lazy, incompetent or simply ideologues in pursuit of their own agendas? 

Or all three?

Goebbels - or Just Silly Vectron?

Just as the old adage about conspiracy and stuff-up goes, perhaps it isn't necessary to invoke Josef Goebbels. Having made such a song and dance about local government 'reform', perhaps Barnett and Simpson simply find life empty and meaningless without it.

Wishful Thinking - or just more bullying?

Local Government Minister, Tony 'Homer' Simpson, reminded Mayors that "there are just 13 months until the new local governments are created in metropolitan Perth".

I'm not sure what planet Homer is on, although he keeps on saying 'will' - perhaps he believes the Josef Goebbel's argument that “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it".

Whether we believe it or not, the rest of us should beware what Goebbels went on to say:

"The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

Well, the economic consequences are becoming all too clear, with the miserly funding allocated in the WA Budget last week.

Simpson continues talking with certainty despite the fact that the 'independent' Local Government Advisory Board has yet to report on the multitude of proposals before it.

If the LGAB is truly independent, the possibility must exist that it will not recommend all or any of the proposals. 

Not holding my breath on that - but there is still the overwhelming community opposition that will see the Liberal/National parties lose government at the next election if they persist with forced amalgamations.

And then there is the legal action that has been initiated…………………

Lots of water to flow under lots of bridges yet, Minister.

Too Little, Too Late

Col Pot and Homer Simpson must be overjoyed at the latest response from local government mayors, predictably responding to the totally inadequate funding for amalgamations in the WA Budget last week.

Anyone with any knowledge of local government or organisational change in general knows that the $15 million allocated by the State Government (or even the $60 million including loans) is totally inadequate. The inevitable result will be either that the changes are not implemented as well as they should be and/or ratepayers will be paying for the changes over many years to come.

But the real issue here is that Mayors and Councils should have been resisting the process by which the Government has been trying to force changes on communities that do not want them. As Commissioner Lynton Reynolds said at a community meeting in Canning a few months ago, whatever his personal views on amalgamations he took an oath when appointed to represent the interests of the Canning community - community after community has clearly said it does not want the changes being forced on them by Col and Homer.

It is ironic that it took a government-appointed Commissioner to say this while elected Mayors were largely silent and focussing on the details of proposed changes.

Why has it taken the Mayors so long to wake up to this? And why, even now, are they focussing on the cost rather than the fundamental democratic principle that communities should have a say in how they are governed.