Definition of Optimism - Busselton

The West Australian, 27th September 2014

I can't help but admire the optimism of the City of Busselton.

Whilst there is no doubt that even the spectre of local government amalgamations (forced or otherwise, depending on your point of view) is stressful for local government employees, if they do actually go ahead in the metropolitan area there is little doubt that country WA will be next in line.

So, if you're in a metro local government and stressed out by 'amalgamations', you might just be jumping from the frying pan into the fire, unless we can stop the whole shambolic process in its tracks.

Jumping The Gun - Armadale

The City of Armadale has presumably made the judgment that Homer's forced 'boundary changes' will go ahead and that the court action will fail.

I hope the Council is ready to explain to its ratepayers why it will be paying $300,000 for staff contract positions that are very likely not to be necessary.

Clearance Sale to Fund Col's Coliseum

Well, actually only to fund about one-quarter of the stadium vanity project - and then there's Elizabeth Quay.

Does anyone seriously think that these sales will get back our AAA credit rating?

Looking at some of these sites, such as the East Perth Power Station and the Old Perth Girls School, one can only hope that if they are to be sold there are appropriate heritage and planning controls in place - and they are properly enforced.

Even The West Couldn't Totally Ignore This…

…but they did manage to give it only seven short paragraphs and bury it at the foot of page 14.

Note also that it was written by Daniel Emerson, the state political reporter, with nothing from Kate Emery, the West's local government reporter.

It will be interesting to see if Kate writes (or the West publishes) anything on the potentially profound implications of this defeat for Barnett and Simpson.

More Cracks - and not just in the Façade

Click to enlarge

The Labor motion opposing forced local government amalgamations, introduced into the Legislative Council last week, has been passed - without a formal vote, as the Government didn't want the embarrassment of a formal defeat in Parliament.

I congratulate those MLCs, National and Liberal as well as Labor, who stood up for democracy and good government to ensure the passage of this motion, introduced by the Hon Ken Travers, MLC, which read:

That this house —
(a) expresses its view that the Local Government Act 1995 never contemplated the use of boundary changes to amalgamate local governments;
(b) believes that the correct approach under the act is to abolish existing local governments and to create new local governments as this ensures that local communities are given a voice as intended by the Dadour provisions of the act;
(c) is of the view that any attempt to force local government amalgamations by using boundary changes to circumvent the intent of the Dadour provisions is an abuse of the act; and
(d) therefore calls on the government to ensure that any proposals for amalgamation of existing local governments involve the abolition of all affected councils and the creation of new councils.

I'm not holding my breath for Barnett and Simpson to see the writing on the wall, though, let alone being able to read and understand it.

Here We Go Again

Click to enlarge

The situation in New South Wales might well be very different from here in WA - and the report in the Sydney Morning Herald suggests that the financial situation of local government is worse - but the issues are the same.

Those in favour of amalgamations emphasise financial issues - without providing substantial evidence that amalgamations would improve the situation. Indeed, the evidence is that the state government is part of the problem through requiring Councils not to increase rates each year by more than a standard percentage set by the 'Independent' Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal it established in 1977.

Annual Council budgets have been unable to reflect specific local circumstances for 37 years - no wonder they have financial problems and are unable to maintain infrastructure.

The NSW Government is offering financial incentives for amalgamations that far exceed the money made available by the WA Government, but unless it changes the 'rate-pegging' situation any benefit is likely to be short-lived.

Those who oppose amalgamations are concerned about community of interest and the fact that the NSW Government hasn't ruled out forced amalgamations. In that latter respect, the people of New South Wales can take some comfort from the fact that the next State election is due on 28th March 2015 - so it is unlikely that any action will be taken before then.

But the people of NSW need to be aware of the WA experience - electing a Premier who said that there would be no forced amalgamations didn't stop that same Premier from turning a promise into a lie.

Electing a Premier who simply says that he 'hasn't ruled out forced amalgamations' would be tantamount to accepting that forced amalgamations will happen.

There is a Crack in Everything - That's How the Light Gets In (Leonard Cohen)

National Party Ministers are to be commended for sticking to their State Conference resolution to oppose forced council amalgamations. In the Parliament, they voted against the Government - and now they are reported to have refused to take part in Cabinet discussions on the recommendations of the Local Government Advisory Board.

In many ways, it would have been better (if futile) if the Nationals had stayed in Cabinet to argue against the Government - but this would have bound them by the convention of cabinet solidarity. Perhaps by staying out they have maintained their ability to be true to their party conference resolution. We can but hope.

But, in any case, the cracks are appearing.

As political analyst, Harry Phillips, is reported as saying, the tension in Government is intensifying over council amalgamations and is threatening to split the Liberal-National alliance.

Even if it doesn't cause a formal split, it does at least allow a little more light into the debate.

Withers Gets It - And Fails to Get It

Simon Withers, Mayor of Cambridge, is spot on when he talks of the City of Perth's expansion plans being driven by ego.

West Australian 24th September 2014. Click to enlarge

However, he misses the point entirely when he talks about Vincent.

The community of Vincent does not want to be amalgamated with the City of Perth - 77% of voters in the October 2013 referendum wanted to keep Vincent as it is.

The Council of the City of Vincent doesn't want to be amalgamated with the City of Perth. It's formal position, set out in a Council resolution of 5 November 2013, is to support the community's view but to "strongly continue to campaign for the full inclusion of City of Vincent … if forced mergers are to proceed."

Add to that the oft-expressed view of the City of Perth and its Lord Mayor, Lisa Scaffidi, that two-thirds of Vincent has no place in the capital city and we have a recipe for a disfunctional local government with no community of interest.

And the ego doesn't end there. Last Thursday, the City of Perth Council resolved to "work closely with the Premier to establish an alternative path to achieving  City of Perth's key reform objectives", including special legislation for the capital city. In other words, it doesn't like what the Local Government Advisory Board has recommended so it wants to change the rules.

This arrogance is precisely why the City of Perth should not be entrusted with any more power and responsibility than it currently has and, arguably, the Minister for Local Government should call an Inquiry into the City Council.

If You Don't Win…Change The Rules

In the world according to Colin Barnett and Lisa Scaffidi, what they want is what must happen - and if it doesn't, it's because the world is wrong.

So if they don't get their way in local government so-called reform, it must be because the rules are wrong.

Of course, this is all of a piece with the previous post on this blog about Col bullying Simpson because he doesn't like the LGAB's recommendations.

Thanks to Bill Prince, Co-ordinator of the Canning Community Alliance, for drawing my attention to this. Having given away reading the Sunday Times many years ago - as a protest over its destruction of forests for masses of advertising and minimal news - I would have missed this.

Of course, the real question is whether Col would have the numbers in Parliament to push such an Act through, especially after hanging his hat on the LGAB process in the first place. It all smacks of petulance - both Col and Lisa - if you don't win, change the rules.

Sunday Times, 21st September 2014. Click to enlarge

Out Of The Mouths Of Ministers…

Minister Simpson has been reported to have said that every word he says or writes on local government reform is carefully checked and approved by the State Solicitor's Office before it is released or said by him. That being so, we can take it that the words attributed to him in the latest Local Government Update have the SSO stamp of approval - notwithstanding that they appear to admit some of the claims in the legal action currently before the Supreme Court.

He is reported as saying: "Given the overlapping and competing proposals, the Board's role has been to assess each proposal on its merits…". With 'competing and overlapping' proposals, it is a logical impossibility for the Board to assess each proposal individually without reference to other proposals that 'compete' or 'overlap' with it.

In other words, it cannot assess each proposal individually - and yet the Board has no power to combine inquiries into multiple proposals. This provision is not simply absent from the Local Government Act, 1995, but the Government thought it necessary to try to give the Board that power via the unsuccessful Local Government Amendment Bill, 2013, which has singularly failed to pass the Parliament. In doing so, of course, the Government effectively admitted that the Board does not have that power currently.

Simpson is also reported as saying that: "…the inquiries represented the most significant and complex task ever undertaken by the Board". This is self-evidently true, by the proverbial country mile (no apologies for not metricating), something that should give the Minister cause to reflect on the fact that it was never the intention of the Parliament, in setting up the Board, that it should undertake such a complex task.

A Peculiar View of Democracy

In the Legislative Assembly debate on David Templeman's motion a week or so ago, Homer gave us a bit of insight into why he regards the Dadour poll provision as 'undemocratic'. He said:

Hansard, Legislative Assembly, 10th September 2014. Click to enlarge

Simpson's view of democracy is, apparently, the dictatorship of the majority, without regard to the wishes of any minority.

In practical terms, it would make little or no difference to the rest of the western suburbs whether Peppermint Grove was in or out. And if the people of Peppermint Grove wish to (according to Homer, anyway) pay more for a small, very local council, why shouldn't they.

The problem is not that the poll is undemocratic. The problem is that the whole process, right from the Minister's initial proposals, has been undemocratic. If proposals had been developed in response to community wishes and concerns, they would be supported. So, if, for example, the strong views of Peppermint Grove residents had been acknowledged at the start (and assuming that other western suburbs were happy with amalgamation - a big 'if' but bear with me for the sake of the argument), a G6 proposal might have gathered support.

Alternatively, if the Local Government Advisory Board were able to undertake polls as part of their assessment process, it could develop 'significantly different recommendations' (ie significantly different from the original proposal - as it has done with Cockburn and Melville) that would allow those that want to amalgamate to do so while leaving unaffected those that are happy as they are.

Now this certainly makes amalgamation more difficult and the achievement of Barnett's prime objective (reducing the number of Councils) less likely, but the result would be communities having the local governments they want not those that our 'masters' want or think we ought to have.

Sounds democratic to me.

Col Doesn't Like It - So He's Bullying Homer Now

Click to enlarge

So Col doesn't like some of the LGAB recommendations and is urging Homer to reject some of them.

And then he wants to hold in reserve the option to introduce further 'boundary changes' to get his 'strategic assets' (UWA, QEII and Burswood) into the City of Perth at a later date.

Now, whatever one might think of the appropriateness of using the LGAB to deal with such a complex set of proposals or its competence to do so, the fact is the Col chose this way of doing it and is now trying to alter the outcomes after the event.

The LGAB could, if it thought the reasons strong enough, have recommended variations to the City of Vincent proposal to add UWA, QEII and Burswood to the amalgamation of Vincent and Perth. The fact that it chose not to do so is presumably in recognition of spatial separation, natural boundaries and, in the case of Burswood, the adverse financial effect on Victoria Park (with or without South Perth).

That Col thinks the LGAB could possibly come up with a different conclusion when faced with a 'new' proposal beggars belief and is typical of his arrogance.

The LGAB could (and arguably should) summarily reject a subsequent proposal for boundary adjustment on the grounds that it was similar to a proposal it had considered in the previous two years (Schedule 2.1, Clause 3, para 2(a)) - or even that "the proposal is frivolous or otherwise not in the interests of good government" (Schedule 2.1, Clause 3, para 2(b)).

One can only hope that, in typical bully style, if we don't let him win the game he will pick up his bat and go home.

At Least The Scots Had A Vote

The Scots have decided, by democratic vote, to remain part of the United Kingdom.

Barnett and Simpson set out to deny the people of Perth a democratic vote on whether or not to keep their current local governments.

The scale and importance of these two may seem vastly different, but local democracy is fundamental to the integrity of state and national democracy.

At the 2010 General Election, the Scottish voter turnout was 64%. For the independence referendum, the voter turnout was 86% - demonstrating how much more responsive voters are to a single fundamental choice than to complex, often illusory and largely irrelevant party political differences.

For those in Perth who doubt the feasibility of getting the 50%+1 turnout required for a valid poll, I say take heart from the Scottish experience. Alex Salmond says it has been "a triumph for the democratic process and for participation in politics".

Let those of us who do have the opportunity for a poll on the local government recommendations make sure that those polls, whatever their outcome, are also a triumph for the democratic process and for participation in politics.

Emperor (Nero?) Still Fiddling

Rome might not be burning, but Col is still trying (unsuccessfully) to defend the indefensible - and in doing so manages to admit, yet again, that the Government hasn't done its homework on local government so-called reform.

All he manages to say is: "I don't think there is any reason at all why amalgamations should force rates up and I'd hope over future years it would mean rates will stay lower than the otherwise would".

So, even after all this time, Col still has no evidence that rates won't go up and can only hope that they'll go down.

Hardly sounds like a strong argument for forcing communities to spend $100million on forced amalgamations.

He then goes on to say that: "Different communities may decide they want different levels of services and so that would affect the cost".

Why then, Col, can't communities at least have the opportunity to decide whether, in your terms, they want possibly to pay more for a more local council or possibly less for a larger council?

Nationals MP, Tony Aldridge, hits the nail on the head when he says that: "…we [the Nationals] have without question a better understanding of our constituency than he [Barnett] does". Surely the same applies to the metropolitan area - Barnett dare not take the honest and open approach of working through the Parliament because he knows that local members of Parliament, including members of his own party, will oppose him. Instead he and Simpson take the coward's way of forcing the Local Government Advisory Board to do their 'dirty work' for them in a complex process the Board was not set up to consider.

Debate is Essential for Democracy

Click to enlarge

As one with Scottish ancestry (albeit a long way back), I have been following the independence referendum with some interest. One of the most fascinating aspects of it has been the extent to which it has revived genuine political debate - something that has been lacking both in the UK and Australia for far too long.

Duncan MacLaren has an illuminating piece in today's 'Eureka Street' that, amongst other things, highlights that bigger is not necessarily better - small countries often have less inequality than large ones.

Tony Abbott, of course, prefers bigger to better - not that it's any of his or Australia's business what the Scots want or do.

But I particularly like MacLaren's last comment that "the process we have undergone … will have a lasting effect on the life of the nation and far beyond our borders, acting as an inspiration for democratic change through talk".

If I have one hope out of the current shambles of a process for local government so-called reform in WA, it is that, whatever the outcome of the court case, government will no longer take the rest of us for granted.

That hope will be more readily realised if the legal action is successful, but the expressed strength of community outrage should put our elected representatives on notice even if that particular battle is not won.

Revisionism or Sycophancy?

Interesting to note the differences between the story that appeared on the West website yesterday (below left) and the one there (and in the print edition) today (below right). It's essentially the same story, with the addition of Linton Reynolds' comments, but the main emphasis and headline has changed from Canning Council's being sacked to mandatory training for councillors - the latter, of course, is much more to Homer's liking given that he wants to get rid of half the councillors in the metropolitan area, so implying they are incompetent works for him.

But I'm sure it's pure accident that the revised story has a more flattering picture of the Minister!

To be fair, Kate Emery did report (briefly) Linton Reynolds' remarks from yesterday (below), which confirms my interpretation posted here yesterday.

West Australian, 17th September 2014

Payback for Canning Commissioner

There has been a lot of criticism of Commissioner Linton Reynolds for his management of the City of Canning over the past few years, but one thing no one can doubt has been his sincerity in respect of reflecting the Canning Community's opposition to the forced merger process. As reported here in an earlier post on 6th March (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/canning-community-cares.html), reporting on a community meeting held the previous evening:

"I was very impressed at the way in which the Commissioner for the City of Canning, Linton 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."

Now his 'reward' is to be sacked along with the remnants of the City of Canning Council.In case anyone is in any doubt that Simpson's decision is payback for Linton Reynolds' opposition, just read the last paragraph of the article which is a direct quote attributed to him:

"When Linton came into the job, it [the City of Canning] was in disarray…he has taken the City of Canning from where it was to a fantastic organisation but it's now time to move on to a new era to make sure we have a local government ready to embrace the reform process."

'A local government ready to embrace the reform process' is not very inventive code for 'will do what I want rather than standing up for the views of the residents and ratepayers of the City of Canning'.

Cartoon Cabinet?

I recently read that the best weapon against authority figures is to point out how patently absurd they are. The author of that statement went on to say: "Authority - particularly authority that uses violence to enact its will - is … inherently ridiculous, thus showing that all human authority is only as meaningful as we make it".

With that in mind, I offer the following case of life imitating art - or perhaps Matt Groening (creator of 'The Simpsons'), with his keen sense of the ridiculous, really does run the WA Government.
               

Okay, this last one is more on the basis of name and capacity for getting things wrong than anything else - Tony has more hair than the cartoon Homer Simpson - but the five o'clock shadow he sometimes sports has a very Homer S look about it.

Couldn't find a doppelgänger for Marge Simpson (unless Bronwyn Bishop moves to WA). Nor Waylon Smithers - although Kim Hames wouldn't need too much plastic surgery to do it.

Thanks to Dean Alston for his cartoon in the West Australian that originally prompted this little excursion into cartoonery.

The West Australian, Saturday, 22 March 2014

City of Perth: Loser

If Jessica Strutt's report on the ABC is correct (and it is consistent with rumours that have been around for the past couple of weeks), the City of Perth will be the big loser out of the Local Government Advisory Board recommendations. Not only will it not get Burswood, it will lose the part of UWA it currently has and will be amalgamated with the whole of the City of Vincent.

Lisa Scaffidi, from the very start when she posed with Colin Barnett atop Central Park looking out over what she wanted to be her expanded domain, has been stridently opposed to joining with more than the southern (largely commercial) part of Vincent. No matter how she dressed it up, her opposition came down to people power - Vincent has twice the number of electors that the City of Perth has.

It would take some major gerrymandering of wards and representation to ensure a CBD majority on the new Council - but we need to be on the lookout for its happening.

Interestingly, the City of Vincent proposal, which has been presumably been recommended by the LGAB, clearly triggers the poll provision in the Local Government Act. Will we now see the City of Perth encouraging a poll and supporting a 'no' vote? Fascinating thought.

Click to enlarge

Homer's Confused 'Logic' - Yet Again

In the debate on David Templeman's motion opposing the Government's policy of forced local government amalgamations, Local Government Minster, Tony (Homer) Simpson, managed an astonishing feat of self-justification that defies all reason.

He said that: "The golden rule in local government is that a high turnout of voters tells us that there is a problem in local government. If no one votes … the local government is doing well".

He somehow then managed to attribute the low turnout at the October 2013 local government elections to a lack of concern about the 'reform' process. He said: "If the wider community had been very anxious about the reform process in the metropolitan area, I would have expected to see a big jump in the number of people voting in local government elections when the reform process was fairly and squarely on the table".

Au contraire, Minister.

According to your first (correct) statement, the low turnout reflects the view that local government is doing well. If local government is doing well, there is no need for your so-called reforms.

In any case, in October 2013, whilst local government 'reform' was 'on the table', no one knew then the extent of your duplicity and deceit - and people were expecting to have a democratic vote on proposals. The proposals you submitted to the Local Government Advisory Board were very different from those you released in July 2013 - and all with the objective of avoiding giving communities access to the Dadour poll provision.

First the Shark Cull Goes - Next, Local Government 'Reform'

Colin Barnett, as the initiator and champion of the WA shark cull, has suffered a personal defeat at the hands of the EPA.

This excuse for a policy was introduced without proper assessment - even down to the absence of any assessment of the technical and legal risks. It has now been knocked into touch by the adjudicator.

Sound familiar?

The policy of forced local government boundary changes (as Col and Homer are very fond of saying, there no forced amalgamations simply because they do no deign to call them what they are) was also introduced without proper assessment of costs, benefits and risks - as Home has 'proudly and unambiguously stated.

The danger of not doing your homework, Col and Homer, is that an independent arbiter will be unable to see the justification for what you are doing. In particular, if you cannot demonstrate the benefits and that risks are appropriately managed, an objective person will say you have no business imposing costs on those who do not want what you are forcing on them.

So, the shark cull is gone today.

Tomorrow (well, in a few months), Col and Homer's local government so-called reform is likely to meet the same fate at the hands of the Supreme Court.

From Col's perspective, I suppose, this will at least have the relative 'virtue' of, at worst, being shared with Homer. More likely, he is already congratulating himself on having successfully set up Homer as the fall guy for this failure.

Abuse of Power - and Lack of Concern About It

First Dog on the Moon is Australia's only Walkley Award winning marsupial-based cartoonist (http://firstdogonthemoon.com.au). First Dog on the Moon appears regularly in The Guardian and I just couldn't resist the obvious parallels of this latest one (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cartoon/2014/sep/11/dog-billionaire) to our situation in WA, exemplified by local government so-called reform but with much wider relevance. 

Click to enlarge

Almost - But Not Quite

There was almost a boilover in the Legislative Assembly yesterday when the National Party MLAs, true to their State Conference resolution, voted against the Government - the Government's majority came down to just three - and if South Perth MLA, John McGrath, had lived up to some of the things he has said publicly about the local government so-called reform process it would have come down to just one - one more 'honourable' Liberal member and the Government would have suffered an embarrassing defeat. No doubt the party whips were out in force to make sure this didn't happen.

David Templeman, Opposition Spokesman on Local Government, moved a motion:
"That this house advise the Government that it does not support its forced council amalgamations process in the metropolitan area".

In a display of arrogance that would not have been allowed in local government (where standing orders prohibit an amendment that has the effect of producing the negative of the motion being debated), a Government amendment was introduced, debated and won by just three votes.

To see how your local MLA voted on this sycophantic amendment, have a look at the voting record below.

Truth Will Out

It comes as no surprise to those of us who have been part of local government in WA to read that: "State Government figures show WA Councils are waiting for years for changes to building heights, zoning and land use to be approved…[with]…some [having] waited two to four years to have the WA Planning Commission approve town planning schemes, structure plans and scheme amendments."

For once, WALGA President Troy Pickard gets it right when he says: "Councils too often bear the brunt of angry ratepayers and other stakeholders who incorrectly point the finger at them, which is grossly unfair when much of the responsibility lies with the WAPC [WA Planning Commission] and its lack of sufficient resources".

Mind you, he should have added that those who incorrectly point the finger at local government include Planning Minister, John Day, and Local Government Minister, Homer Simpson, who are all too ready to place the blame for delays on local governments and to use this as an excuse for abolishing, amalgamating and emasculating them.

Click to enlarge

Nothing To Say?

The latest 'Local Government Update' is an exercise in saying absolutely nothing.

It says nothing about the Memorandum of Consent agreed between the parties in the legal action against the Minister and the Local Government Advisory Board.

It says nothing about when the Local Government Advisory Board will submit its report (or reports) to the Minister. The LGAB report was originally due in July 2014 and the date has been a sliding feast ever since - reflecting the extreme complexity of the task the Board has been given.

It says nothing about what the Minister might do with the LGAB report and its recommendations. Will he make them public? How will he make his decisions on the recommendations - either to accept or reject, there is no other way he can respond? When will he decide?

The one thing we can - and must - hold him to is this statement in a previous 'Update' (25th August, 2014):

This statement is unequivocal. The Government will not start the process of issuing Governor's Orders until after any polls have been held. We know that the electors of the Western Suburbs and of Cockburn and Kwinana will have the opportunity to call a poll. It is also likely that the electoral rolls will have to be updated before any poll can take place.

So it seems that this commitment and the Memorandum of Consent are looking at similar timeframes.

However, given the duplicity that has been evident so far in this process, we can take nothing for granted. We must be alert to the possibility that the Minister will move to get Governor's Orders issued sooner than these statements indicate, notwithstanding that I believe that in doing so he would come dangerously close to being in contempt of court.

Hyprocrisy Rules: Conference Supports Metro Councils but Redman Still Doesn't Get It

Whilst the WA State National Part Conference was very clear in its opposition to forced local government amalgamations in the Perth metropolitan area, National leader Terry Redman unfortunately still doesn't get it. 

He still harks on about it being okay for metro councils to be forced to amalgamate. 

"The understanding that we had with the Liberal Party was that we would support metropolitan local government reform on the basis that the regions were ring-fenced," he said.

"While the public commentary remains that the bush will be next, or that regional areas are now up for reform, the National Party will withdraw its support for amalgamations of the metropolitan area.

With breathtaking naivety, he went on to say: "The Premier needs to withdraw any commentary that regional councils are next for us to support it in the city."

This is not what the conference resolution said. Besides which, given the Barnett/Simpson track record of duplicity and lies on local government so-called reform, why on earth would anyone trust either of them to abide by any such statement. Once the metro changes were done and dusted, it's London to the proverbial brick that country councils would very quickly be in the firing line.

Well Done, WA Nationals

This 'stop press' post thanks to information provided by Malcolm Mummery in an email to the Dadour Group.

This morning the Nationals at their conference in Margaret River delayed morning tea (significant if you have tasted CWA scones) to pass the motion calling on their elected members to cease supporting legislation on council amalgamations.
 
This is not binding on elected members, and the key legislation has been stalled since February anyway, but puts on the public record a matter of fundamental significance to our political system that the media have been studiously avoiding.   If the ALP now gets challenged over its position (it supported the legislation and hides behind the misleading mantra that it opposes forced amalgamations) on the essential scope of LG autonomy, the façade of orderly procession to a Labor victory will be shattered.  We may just hear arguments on principle rather than just slogans. 

The resolution is also an important demonstration to Messrs Barnett and Simpson that they have squandered whatever goodwill they might once have had on the issue of local government reform.

Expediting Not Deferring

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/expedite

A lot of people might have been disappointed by the cancellation of the Directions Hearing that was due to be held in the Supreme Court at 1.15pm today (Friday 5th September). I know that some are calling it a deferral, but it is, in fact, an expediting of the process.

My message is "don't be disappointed".

The hearing scheduled for 1.15pm today (Friday 5th September) did not go ahead because the matters it was to deal with had already been dealt with by agreement between the parties, signed and filed with the Supreme Court on 4th September. I am advised by the lawyers that this is a common (and encouraged) practice that helps minimise court time and the costs of an action.

This agreement (Memorandum of Consent) specifies the steps to be taken (including discovery of documents and establishing facts agreed between the parties), as a prelude to judicial review of the application, and timelines by which these stages must be completed. As such, it gives us greater confidence that the case will proceed to the stage of formal judicial review.

It is my personal belief that this represents a tacit acknowledgment by the State Solicitors Office that they do not have substantial arguments against the application for judicial review, but it should not be read as an indication of the view the court itself will take on the substantive issues.

Moreover, the time necessary for these agreed steps before judicial review throws a big spanner into the works of the Minister's decreed timeline - of which he has been making much in recent times.

Utopia Nails It Again

Having previously praised the ABC program 'Utopia' for its 'expose' of unnecessary image -making (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/even-simplest-thing-is-subject-to.html), I now take my hat off to the series creators yet again.

The latest episode, available on iView until 15th October, is a brilliant exposé of how the development industry gets its way by using weasel words (matched only by the weasel words of the new employee who can only speak in employment jargon at his performance review - and still ends up getting a promotion - out of the Nation Building Authority, much to the relief of other staff) and continually upping its claims.

All of this despite established planning rules and, once the word 'iconic' is uttered, with the connivance of the Planning Minister.

Does this sound horribly familiar?

Informing the Nationals: The More The Better

Following on from the previous post, which included the report that the WA Nationals would be considering opposing forced local government amalgamation anywhere in WA, it is vital that National Party MPs are left in no doubt about the strength of argument against and strength of feeling about what Simpson is trying to force on the communities of the metropolitan area.

I have sent the following email to all National Party MPs in WA, individually:

Click to enlarge

I know others have also written to the WA National Party MPs. There is a short period before the conference at the weekend for you to add to the numbers - and we all know most politicians are very adept at reading the numbers - not too sure about Barnett and Simpson, though.

Clear Evidence of Intent

I must have missed this piece in the Post when it was published, but here (column 4) is the clearest possible statement of intentionally avoiding the Dadour poll provision. Whilst this statement presumably referred specifically to country local governments, it is clear evidence of Homer's approach to so-called reform.

I guess this is coming back to bite him now with the resolution passed 192-37 at the WALGA AGM and  Nationals moving to distance themselves from forced amalgamations at their state conference this coming weekend.