The Prize For Prescience

In the first post here on the local government so-called reform shenanigans, the graphic included a letter from Nick Boorman of Greenmount (right).

Yesterday we saw reports that South Perth Council has, indeed, voted for the name 'South Park' should the forced amalgamation with Victoria Park (excluding Burswood) eventuate.

Definitely better than the trite and uninspiring 'South Bank City' suggested by Victoria Park Council - which sounds like the proverbial horse designed by a committee.

Now we see that life truly imitates art. And the prize for Prescience goes to Nick Boorman.

Sir Humphrey Would Be Proud

So - an event is significant if, and only if, the Minister decides that it is significant. If he doesn't want to tell us about it, then it is, by his definition, not significant.

Everything You wanted to Know…

…about local government so-called reform - but Col Pot and Homer didn't want to tell you.

Thanks to Jeremy Mowe for posting this great infographic. Click on the link here (https://magic.piktochart.com/output/2261910-western-australian-council-amalg) to be able to access the wealth of information behind it.

Especially valuable is the contribution from the Hon Simon O'Brien MLC telling the government he supports that it has got it all horribly wrong.

A Request To The WA Auditor General

Click to enlarge

Not Just Local Government…

It's official! This Government doesn't 'do' business cases - either doesn't understand their importance or simply doesn't care about the continuing consequences of its actions.

The WA Auditor General has found that the Department of Regional Development, which manages the Royalties for Regions program, "didn't have stringent project selection criteria and did not know if funded projects would achieve long-term benefits".

This doesn't necessarily mean, as Opposition Leader Mark McGowan has claimed, that "at times taxpayers' money has been spent on projects that did not provide long-term benefits to regional communities".

It does mean, however, that the Barnett government has been irresponsible and negligent in not wanting to know whether RfR projects do provide long-term benefits to regional communities - as distinct from short-term political benefits to the government.

It isn't just local government forced amalgamations that this government has embarked on without an understanding of costs and benefits.

That doesn't make it any better for affected local communities - it makes it worse for all WA taxpayers.

If The Natural Boundary Is the Railway…

Western Suburbs Weekly, 24th June 2014

Charles Johnson is quoted as saying, "the key barriers for the City of Perth are the Swan River, Kwinana and Mitchell Freeways, Kings Park and the train lines". He goes onto say that these "also suggest the edges of communities and often the best boundaries of local government".

So how can he support Vincent being absorbed into the City of Perth?

If anything, he should be saying that the City of Perth should contract within those boundaries and focus on its big-business and CBD functions.

This is typical of the lack of rigour in almost all of the 'debate' on the Barnett/Simpson local government so-called reform - it focuses on a particular outcome (in this case, the answers sought by the Town of Cambridge and the City of Vincent, which commissioned this report) rather than looking objectively at the evidence.

Another Crack In The Wall

Western Suburbs Weekly, 24th June 2014

It is reported in the Western Suburbs Weekly that the City of Subiaco may withdraw its late proposal to the Local Government Advisory Board.

I regard this as good news in two respects. First, it would demonstrate to other Councils that it is possible, indeed desirable, to withdraw proposals that were submitted, as Subiaco Council put it in its resolution, 'under perceived duress'. This will greatly simplify the mess of local government proposals left when the courts declare the Simpson proposals in breach of the Local Government Act.

Second, the Subiaco proposal was grafted onto the City of Perth proposal, which readers of this blog will know sought to cherry-pick the assets of the City of Vincent while leaving the rest of Vincent in limbo.

Here's hoping this is the first step in the great unravelling that will leave nothing of Tony Simpson's 'legacy' except his other description of his local government so-called reform, namely a 'shit sandwich' - his words, not mine.

Wrong (Again) Minister

Why was it Local Government Minister, Tony (Homer) Simpson, threatening local governments on planning matters yesterday? He is responsible for the Local Government Act, 1995; planning and development approval functions are delegated to local governments under the Planning Act, 2005, by the Minister for Planning.

Was it, perhaps, an attempt to bolster Simpson's standing by distracting attention from the forced amalgamations debacle? Not at all sure he has any standing these days - see for example his pathetic non-answer to the parliamentary question about his meeting with the Community Action Alliance.

Or perhaps it was a desperate recognition that legal action is likely to stop the government's forced amalgamations in their tracks. Was Homer really saying that if he can't advance the interests of the development industry in one way he'll do it in another - pity (for him) he can't actually do it.

I wonder if he told Planning Minister, John Day, what he was intending to do?

Consistency, Uniformity and (Lack of) Intelligence

Oscar Wilde observed that "consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative". I'd say it is more the case that uniformity is the last refuge of the unintelligent.

Whilst it is quite reasonable to want planning regulations to be applied consistently, it is not reasonable to require that exactly the same regulations apply wherever you go across a diverse metropolitan area.

Differences between areas don't make it hard for 'ratepayers who wanted to make simple alterations to their homes', provided those regulations in their own local government are clear and consistently applied - although my experience as a local government councillor is that you get just as much flack from trying to apply regulations consistently as when you exercise some discretion - you just get the flack from different people.

It's only developers who operate in multiple local governments who might get a little confused - but that's not a reason for over-riding the wishes of local communities on what is or is not acceptable development. Often the 'confusion' on the part of developers relates to what concessions they can screw out of local governments rather than what the regulations allow.

Was the Property Council pulling the Minister's strings here?

Who's Lying This Time?

Lies and distortion of the truth are increasingly the norm in Australian Federal and State politics.

We all know about Colin Barnett's lies (or 'adjustments' to use his weasel word) on forced local government amalgamations - no contest, there, as his words are on the public record.

This time, it's either Col or Tony Abbott - Col saying WA will not pick up the tab for federal cuts to seniors and pensioners concessions - and Tone saying "every single state" had agreed to pick up the shortfall.

I wonder how Col likes the boot being on the other foot - his government being forced to pick up the tab for a federal government decision. I don't suppose he likes it any more than local governments like being forced to pick up the tab for pointless and counter-productive forced amalgamations.

People DO Have The Power

People really do have the power when they organise.

The Muckaty people of the Northern Territory have won their 7-year fight against a radioactive waste dump being established on their land.

http://www.acfonline.org.au/be-informed/northern-australia-nuclear/muckaty-radioactive-dump

Exactly the same type of pressure is being placed on Perth's local governments and their communities by the Barnett/Simpson Axis, with threats of dumping large monolithic local governments that will act in developers' interests on our genuinely local governments.

Just as with radioactive waste management, local government reform "needs an approach based on non-imposition, community consent and scientific and procedural rigour".

Barnett and Simpson have singularly failed, despite initial promises, in all of these areas. Let's hope it doesn't take 7 years for this fight to be won by the people!

Premier's Statistics No Better Than Minister's Arithmetic

According to the Premier, "many" of WA's local government's have "less than 500 residents".

I'm not sure what he meant by 'many', but 16 of WA's 140 local governments have fewer than 500 residents - that's 11.4%. Given the scattered nature of WA's population outside the metropolitan area and country urban centres, it doesn't strike me as unreasonable that there would be some large areas with small populations that are so remote from concentrations of population that they could not effectively be managed from elsewhere.

So how many is 'many'? According to the Oxford Dictionary, 'many' means 'a large number'. Is 16 a large number? Is 11.4% a large proportion?

But the real question is: "why is the Premier using (even if wrongly) statistics from regional WA to support what he and Homer are doing to metropolitan councils?"

And is bigger really better? When he says it is time we 'moved into the 21st century', it is perhaps time for him to move beyond the 20th century when bigger might have been better. The fact is that communications and information technology have cut the feet from under the 'bigger is better' argument, as sharing between organisations is as easy as sharing within a single organisation.

Premier Disingenuous or Just Ignorant?

Not sure what to make of Colin Barnett's statements reported in Perth Now (http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/premier-colin-barnett-answers-questions-from-perthnow-readers-in-coffee-with-colin/story-fnhocxo3-1226959972229)

On the subject of legal action over forced amalgamations, he is reported as saying: “Well I don’t know what the legal case would be because there have been no forced amalgamations so I don’t see how you can take that to court”. We'll see about that, Col.

He is also reported as saying: “At the moment, we’ve got close to 140 local councils across WA. Many have less than 500 residents – some cover less than 5sqkm. I think it’s time we moved into the 21st century". 

Apart from Peppermint Grove, Mosman Park, Cottesloe and Claremont (and then only on the basis of area, not population), this is entirely about country councils - ironically, these western suburbs councils are in the only one of the Government's proposals that allows their electors to call a poll.

National Party Members of Parliament should be afraid - very afraid. If they don't support metropolitan communities in this fight, they will only have themselves to blame when Col Pot and Homer come down their way - see also http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/national-party-beware.html for Tony Simpson's threat along these lines.

An Enemy That's Good To Have

As if to prove the conspiracy theory that local government so-called reform is all about making life easier for the development industry, the Property Council comes out and slags off at Councils that are contemplating testing the legality of the process.

Anyone supporting community questioning of the bullying tactics of this government would have to be overjoyed at having the Property Council come out and say they're doing the wrong thing.

And as for being 'concerned about the rates of local residents being used to enable local government reform' but 'happy to throw the money of local residents at counterproductive legal action', let's look at the relative magnitudes. Professor Brian Dollery estimates that amalgamations are likely to cost $8 million per council - for benefits that are by no means certain and quite possibly illusory.

The cost of legal action, especially if shared between a number of councils, is likely the equivalent of less than one month's interest on that sum for any council.

But what Joe Lenzo is really saying is that the ends (making it easier for developers at the expense of the interests of local communities) justify the means ('flawed process' - on the admission of the Local Government Minister himself) - and never mind the effects on the community at large.

And should we dare to question either the ends or the means, Joe will give us a tongue-lashing.

I'm quaking in my boots, Joe.

I Disagree, Mr Mayor!

http://www.perthvoice.com/voicew, page 2

Vincent Mayor, John Carey, says that the only way to fight the Barnett/Simpson local government proposals is to stay at the table to fight - but he also says "Mergers are going to happen", so what is he going to fight about, except how to be killed with the least amount of pain.

The fact is that if you stay at the table you give all the power to those who forced you to the table in the first place.

Time and time again, most infamously in 1938/39, it has been shown that appeasement doesn't work. Bullies rely on acquiescence - and the only way to counter them is to take your fate into your own hands.

Barnett and Simpson have given no indication that they will ever listen to reason. Time and time again they have stated that, as far as they are concerned, their so-called reform is a fait accompli - and in the process seem to pre-empt the supposedly independent Local Government Advisory Board.

Time to leave the table, John, to have the courage of our convictions and tell Col Pot and Homer to go to whatever hell discredited dictators end up in.

Dictators Together

Brilliant cartoon in this week's Perth Voice. What more can I say!

http://www.perthvoice.com/voicew, page 4

Lies, Damn Lies and Minister's Arithmetic

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2014/06/11/4023305.htm?site=greatsouthern

It has been pointed out to me that the Minister for Local Government, Tony (Homer) Simpson, might share atrocious arithmetical ability as well as a surname with his TV alter ego.

The Minister is reported as saying: "For five hundred houses in Yallingup, a one per cent increase doesn't raise a lot of money, "but over 100,000 properties, a one per cent increase would raise over $100m".

Wow! If a 1% rate increase can raise $100 million from 100,000 properties that is equivalent to $1000 each.  I wonder what their normal rate is?

If he is talking 1% of GRV, i.e. 1 cent in the dollar, then the average GRV must be $100,000 - nearly six times the GRV for my house in the City of Vincent.

The GRV for my large house in prime position in Mt Lawley opposite Hyde Park is $17,680. The 'typical' value used in the City of Vincent Budget for comparison purposes with other local governments is $21,000. Is there anywhere in the metropolitan area that has typical or average GRV of $100,000?

Of course he might be talking about a 1% increase in payable rates which means the average rate for whatever area has these 100,000 properties is $100,000 a year - eighty times what I pay on my house in the City of Vincent.*

Incidentally, Vincent's rates are the 8th lowest in the metropolitan area, after allowing for the fact that it does not have a separate rubbish levy as most other Councils do - so why does the Minister think Vincent is so inefficient that it should be abolished?

* This para amended 13th June 2014, from '$10,000 a year' and 'eight times'. This is one of those cases where the correct value is so far from what might seem reasonable that the error looked reasonable. In my defence - at least I checked. It seems no one had the nouse to check Homer's figures.

National Party Beware

I think most National Party members of Parliament would already know this, but here we have a clear statement that if Col Pot and Homer succeed in the Metropolitan Area they will move on to target country WA.

The fight in Perth is not just a city fight, honourable country members, it is one that you cannot afford for us to lose.

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2014/06/11/4023305.htm?site=greatsouthern

Straight from the Horse's (Homer's) Mouth

Local Government Minister has admitted openly that his purported proposals for local government in the metropolitan area are an artifice to avoid the poll provisions of the Local Government Act. In Bunbury yesterday he said that ultimately the Minister is able to take the final step towards amalgamation. His solution is for boundaries of only one shire to be dissolved while the other stays in place. "There will be no poll; I'll get to my final outcome."
http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2014/06/11/4023305.htm?site=greatsouthern

The Price Of Democracy Is Eternal Vigilance

I have been struck over the past few days by how well Barnett and Simpson have manoeuvred local councils into feeling they now have to defend positions they were bullied into during the process to-date. This prevents, in many but thankfully not all cases, their considering how it was they find themselves in this position and what they might do to remedy that situation.

I can do no better than quote one of the most respected western philosophers, John Stuart Mill, who stated, in 1867:

"Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends than that good men should look on and do nothing".

I might also paraphrase the saying usually attributed to Thomas Jefferson that "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance". Recent and current events demonstrate conclusively that the price of democracy is eternal vigilance.

Out Of The Mouths Of (Not Babes But) Ministers

In Parliament today, Tony Simpson admitted that the Local Government Advisory Board is conducting a single inquiry into the proposals for local government so-called reform. He said that the board was now looking at the bigger picture, not the detail of new boundaries and that "To put the report together... the whole five board members have to sit down as a board and review the whole package".

Just to clarify - the Local Government Advisory Board does not have the ability to combine inquiries into multiple proposals into a single proposal. This ability was included in the Local Government Amendment Bill that is dead in the water in the Legislative Council.

Simpson also gives the game away when he said that the change would have little impact "because most of the boundaries have already been decided".

Minister, it is not the role of the LGAB to decide boundaries; it is the role of the LGAB to recommend either in favour of or against proposals that have been submitted to it. It is the Minister who (God help us!) then decides whether to accept or reject the Board's recommendations.

Yet again, Homer has demonstrated that he does not understand the process for which he is responsible. Little wonder the process is such a shambles - and will, I am confident, be declared so by the courts.

Front-Page News

Front page in the Western Suburbs Weekly and page three in the Guardian Express - no 'funny' remarks about page 3 (a la the UK Sun) please.

Not at all sure I like the 'anti-reform' tag in the GE, though - this is not about being pro- or anti-reform, it's about doing things properly and not perverting the law to achieve your own ends.

Yet More Ministerial Chicanery

As readers of this blog will be aware, there are major and systematic conflicts of interests among the members of the Local Government Advisory Board in respect of the Ministerial proposals for local government so-called reform (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/conflicts-of-interest.html and http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/thanks-to-chair-of-lgab.html).

So now, in his latest act of bastardry, Homer has used his ministerial powers to say that for the current metropolitan process such conflicts of interest don't matter.

He might well be right that all five members of the LGAB need to be able to  participate across the board - but that is because he is using the LGAB to perform a function it was not designed to do.

The LGAB was designed to deal with individual proposals for changes involving a small number of local governments. The Minister is forcing it to deal with a grand metropolitan plan for the total reorganisation of local government. This plan is so far-reaching and fundamental that the Minister should have the courage of his convictions and deal with through the Parliamentary process - not put the LGAB and its members in an impossible position.

The Prize for Weasel Word of the Week

The report card on Colin Barnett's election promises is not looking very good.

That's even without considering the broken promise NOT to do something - the promise NOT to force amalgamations of local governments!

It seems Col has also found another weasel word - one he seems to have discovered in the process of trying to force local government amalgamations - adjustments.

Now, just as local governments are not amalgamated but 'adjusted', so promises are not broken but 'adjusted'.

The prize for weasel word of the week goes to … drum roll … Colin Barnett.

Sorry Folks! It has been pointed out to me that it was in the list in the printed West Australian - see below. But that doesn't change the validity of the weasel word award for Col Pot.

The West Australian, 9th June 2014

Don't Quite Know What To Make Of This

The Department of Local Government and Communities has changed the pictures at the top of its weekly 'Local Government Reform Update'. The lefthand and centre pictures are now from the City of Vincent.

Does this mean that the Department (and, by extension, its Minister) consider that Vincent has done such a good job that our achievements should be highlighted? If so, why are they so keen to get rid of the City of Vincent?

More likely, someone just thought these looked 'good' pictures, without having a clue where they were taken - but that doesn't change the fact that they did think them worth featuring. I just hope that no-one takes it to mean that Vincent supports the so-called reform process.

The picture on the right is several years old, taken when the BHP Billiton building was under construction and before work started on destroying the Esplanade for Elizabeth Quay. A picture taken today would show a blank spot and heaps of sand behind the cyclist.

Good Reason for an Australian Republic?

If true (and many of these things on the internet are not), surely this would make an overwhelming case for replacing the monarchy by an Australian republic.

Only kidding (I think) but a bit of light relief is needed every now and then.

Mind you, it would be nice if our Head of State had an ethical approach to investing her great wealth - be a good counterpoint to our Head of Government's lack of environmental or social ethics.

Subi Post Gets It Wrong

Subiaco Post

I have had my differences with the City of Vincent during this difficult and flawed local government so-called reform process, but I have always been able to maintain a constructive relationship with Mayor John Carey and his Council.

I was more than surprised, therefore, to see this item in the Subiaco Post this weekend, which implies that Vincent has eyes on part of Subiaco.

I contacted John Carey and was assured, as I was sure was the case, that at no time had Vincent made any proposal to incorporate or even affect any part of Subiaco. 

I have contacted the Subiaco Post to point out its error and ask that a correction be published in the next print edition but more immediately on their website and digital edition, in the interests of truth and good relations between Councils, which is especially important given the current threats to local government in Perth.

Not that Cambridge or Perth seem very keen on good relations between Councils, but that's another story.

Shame on the West Australian

The West Australian, 7th June 2014

Just three short paragraphs, buried at the fold on an inside page, is all the West Australian could manage to write about what is probably the most significant local council decision made for a long time. I couldn't even find it on their website!

Subiaco Council, after long and careful deliberation, took the historic decision to resort to legal action to counter the bullying and intimidation of Barnett and Simpson over their local government so-called reform.

Congratulations to Mayor and Councillors at Subiaco, and also to their CEO, all of whom deserve much more credit than the West Australian gives them for having the courage to stand up against the bully-boys masquerading as the Premier and Local Government Minister of WA.

I know of several other Councils that are considering legal action.

Talking and appeasement have not achieved anything other than setting council against council, while the bully-boys look on gleefully. I have written, through my lawyers, to the Local Government Advisory Board and to the Minister seeking some reasonable discussion of what even the Minister has admitted has been a flawed process - only to receive dismissive and patronising responses.

The time for talking is past. It's time for action

South Perth Pulls The Pin

And, to mix metaphors, the Barnett/Simpson house of cards starts to collapse.

As stated in the previous post on this blog (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/shame-on-town-of-cambridge.html), it is premature to start talking about implementation of local government changes until we actually know what those changes, if any, will be.

I believe this will be first of many withdrawals from the process. This will be on the agenda at the City of Vincent Special Meeting of Electors on Monday 9th June and I believe it will be at a similar meeting in Victoria Park (date yet to be set, but will have to be before early-July). The Town of Victoria Park Mayor might have to reconsider his comment after that.

I do believe that the Southern Gazette's headline is misleading, though, as my reading of the City of South Perth decision is that it is more about the process by which so-called reform is being forced on local governments than about whether reform might be beneficial.

This is where the WA Government got it so wrong. At no time has it set out what its so-called reform is meant to achieve, other than a reduction in the number of metropolitan local governments. Nor has it demonstrated what such 'reform' would cost nor the benefits that would be achieved by it. In the absence of any form of supporting analysis of costs and benefits, Barnett and Simpson have resorted to threats and bullying to try to achieve its objective - more and more people and local councils are now seeing this for what it is - sociopathy in action.

Shame on the Town of Cambridge

Western Suburbs Gazette, 1 June 2014

Shame on the Town of Cambridge - not only for ignoring the City of Subiaco but for spending ratepayers' money on what is quite likely not to happen. Given that there is more than one proposal (with major differences between them) affecting each of Cambridge and Subiaco, it is pointless even thinking about matters relating to wards and councillor numbers unless and until a decision has been made on which is to come about.

The whole Local Implementation Committee process being forced on local governments is premature and, given the range of possibilities (including staying as they are) facing most local governments, much of the effort and resources being put into them will be wasted.

For once, I agree with the City of Perth, which has refused to form an LIC with Vincent on the grounds that it does not know what it is that is to be implemented.

Unrest Is Spreading - and Consolidating

More and more, the voices of the community are being raised in outrage against the bully-boy approach of Barnett and Simpson. These voices are also becoming better organised - as are the voices of at least some of the Mayors and Councils who now see the whole so-called reform process for what it really is - a cynical exercise in centralising power to the benefit of development interests and the detriment of people and communities.