Required Reading For The Chief Justice?

West Australian, 27th November 2014

A Strange Exception

I wrote, yesterday, that the Supreme Court judgment (draft available at http://www.supremecourt.wa.gov.au/T/transcripts.aspx) appeared to be a very literal approach to the law (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/a-black-letter-day-for-democracy-in-wa.html). There was, however, one very significant exception.

The Chief Justice ruled that the Dadour poll provisions did not apply to Vincent/Perth and the G5 because the Minister had already stated that he rejected these two LGAB recommendations and that, since a poll would only be binding in the case of a vote for a rejection, a poll could make no difference to the outcome and was therefore a waste of time and money.

'Waste of time and money' is not, to the best of knowledge, a legal argument and, in any case, is a slur on the Minister (ie he would not take any notice of a strong poll that contradicted his views - okay, we know that's probably true, but it isn't a legal argument) and misunderstands what a poll would show:

- A poll with a strong (preferably binding) majority rejecting the recommendation would not be a rejection on the same basis as the Minister, who simply wants to tweak the Vincent/Perth merger to add key assets and introduce a gerrymander to ensure business dominate the new Council. The Minister still wants amalgamation but the poll result would not.

- A poll result that favours the LGAB recommendation would be a vote for a fair and equitable merger of Vincent and Perth, which is, again, totally different from what the Minister and Premier want.

The Chief Justice clearly doesn't understand that democracy isn't simply about achieving a different outcome (although, as argued above, he apparently doesn't understand the nature of the outcomes either), it's about being able to be heard.

The right to request a poll (Schedule 2.1, Clause 8, of the Local Government Act) is an absolute right, unqualified by anything other than the nature of the LGAB recommendation. It certainly isn't qualified by any Ministerial response to the recommendation or whether, in the view of the Chief Justice or anyone else, it might be 'a waste of money'.

A Black (Letter) Day for Democracy in WA

In a judgment that appeared to owe more to the black letter of the law than to its intent, the Supreme Court today gave the green light to Barnett and Simpson to boundary-adjust local government as we know it out of existence in WA.

Nationals, please take note, today's decision means that Barnett and Simpson can reduce the number of non-metropolitan local governments by half, with the support of a compliant Local Government Advisory Board, simply by abolishing every second one and expanding the boundaries of the others to swallow those abolished.

And then a few years down the track, it will halve the number again.

Tom Dadour must be turning in his grave at the way the legal system has allowed the powers-that-be to get away with perverting the poll provisions of the Local Government Act that he fought so hard for.

Mind you, it's hard not to be disappointed at the performance of the applicants' Senior Counsel who, by general consensus, failed to mount the arguments effectively and abandoned two grounds of the action without consulting his clients. His doing so effectively precluded mounting the argument that the Minister's proposals, even though largely rejected by the LGAB, would have had a pervasive impact on the Board's deliberations.

I was impressed, though, with the speed with which the Chief Justice came to his judgment, segueing, without a pause, from the applicants' Counsel's submissions in reply straight into the judgment.

I always, perhaps naively, thought that the point of debate or legal argument was that what was said might have some impact on the decision reached. If this is not so, what the hell were we all there for?

Bring King Puck To Perth

http://www.bbc.com/travel/slideshow/20141103-in-killorglin-irelands-goat-king-still-reigns

A goat king would have to be better than Emperor Col Pot.

With a little encouragement, perhaps King Puck would kick Col Pot's a%&e out of town so that the rest of us can get on with our lives in peace.

Pity The Poor Ranger

Have pity on the oft-maligned local government ranger, whose already-difficult job is about to become many times more complex. 

Existing local laws will continue to apply after the local government changes come into effect until 'the new local government reviews its local laws and replaces them with local laws that will cover the whole district'.

Anyone who has experience of local government knows that making local laws is not a simple process - and in the meantime the rangers will have to enforce multiple local laws. 

Take Fremantle, for example, where rangers will have to enforce the local laws of Fremantle, East Fremantle, Melville and Cockburn. Or South Park (South Perth, Victoria Park, Canning and a small piece of Belmont). Or Subiaco (Subiaco, Cambridge, Stirling, Nedlands).

And then there are the areas that will have no local Council to enforce any local laws at all.

Don't be surprised, therefore, if the Council of the 'continuing' local government (where the 'boundary adjustment' fiction is applied), which has total control of the new local government from July to October 2015 and majority control for the next two years, chooses to make its local laws apply to the whole new entity.

Still, it's interesting (in the sense of the ancient Chinese curse, 'may you live in interesting times') to wonder how many other such problems are awaiting the unwary Councils and communities that are now, belatedly, coming to the conclusion that the changes might not be such a good thing for them.

I am reminded of the words of Bob Dylan's song, I Pity The Poor Immigrant, for we shall soon be unwilling immigrants in new 'communities' that many of us want no part of.

I pity the poor immigrant

Who tramples through the mud

Who fills his mouth with laughing

And who builds his town with blood

Whose visions in the final end

Must shatter like the glass

I pity the poor immigrant

When his gladness comes to pass

A State With No Democracy

Written about Phony Tony and the Abbotoir, but with a refrain that is only too familiar here in WA. 

As johndoejnr writes: 
Tony Abbott, who bullied his way into the position of Prime Minister, did so by harping on and on about how Julia Gillard told one big lie. And then when Abbott gained power, he turned out to be the biggest hypocritical liar of them all.

This song is to remind all Australians that while you can't really trust any politicians nowadays, it's the conservatives you can't trust the most!

Whilst the scale of Abbott's lying is truly breathtaking, it is debatable which is the more hypocritical - Abbott or Barnett.

https://soundcloud.com/johndoejnr/the-club-with-no-cheer - click this link for audio

Bill Hassell Says It Very Well

Bill Hassell, former WA Liberal Party Leader, was interviewed on West TV on Thursday 20th November. In his very measured way, he stated strongly why the current local government so-called reform (or 'deform' as I have seen it referred to recently) is anathema to him as a lifelong Liberal.

For those who were unable to watch on Thursday or would simply like to watch it again, the links are below (the interview is in two parts).

Thanks to WTV for their continuing interest in and reporting on this important issue that has been almost entirely ignored by the commercial media.

The Voice Of Experience

There have been some who doubted that the experience elsewhere described so well by Professor Brian Dollery would be repeated in WA, so it is valuable to hear the voice of local experience.

Rates up by 30%.

More management and fewer workers.

Lots of consultants and contractors.

Where are the examples of merged councils where the people are happy? There are none.

If You Were Confused Before………

…just imagine how confused you'd be if you had to rely on the English translation of a Vietnamese translation (http://autimes.com.au/australia/western-australia/ratepayers-head-to-wa-parliament-to-demand-say-on-council-mergers/) of Jessica Strutt's piece for the ABC (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-18/ratepayers-converge-on-wa-parliament-about-council-mergers/5901220?&section=news).

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Tony Simpson: Give Us Our Rights

Click to enlarge

This letter will be presented to the Minister for Local Government at 1pm today on the step of Parliament House (except that we have been told he won't deign be there to meet with us) calling on him to rectify irregularities: 

(a) in the Local Government Advisory Board process, in that it has not informed Vincent and Perth residents of their right to request a poll under the Local Government Act (Schedule 2.1, clause 8, subclauses (1) and (2)).

Schedule 2.1, Clause 8, subclause (1) clearly states that where the Board recommends the abolition of two or more districts and their amalgamation into one or more districts, the Board shall give notice to affected local governments and affected electors. Subclause (2) states that this notice shall inform affected electors of their right to request a poll under subclause (3) within one month of the issuing of the notice.

The LGAB has not issued any such notice in respect of its recommendation of Proposal 16 (Perth/Vincent) despite its meeting the criteria and despite its recommendation being worded identically to that for South Perth/Victoria Park, for which it has issued such a notice.

(b) in his purporting to make decisions on LGAB recommendations under which electors have the right to call a poll before such poll process has been concluded.

The Local Government Act clearly makes the right to a poll contingent upon the recommendation of the LGAB not on any purported response to that recommendation by the Minister. Since such a poll may bind the Minister, he cannot make a decision in advance of the results of any such poll being known.

He Who Sups With The Devil………

Eastern Reporter, 18th November 2014

The saying, 'he who sups with the devil should use a long spoon', means that one should be very cautious when dealing with dangerous or untrustworthy persons.

It was never more apt than for the City of Bayswater, which has consistently been enthusiastic about local government so-called reform, but now finds itself in the position of trying to defend the right of 1500 of its residents to remain in Bayswater.

At the same time, perhaps the City of Bayswater should reflect on the even larger number of Stirling residents who are being told that, like it or not, they will be living in Bayswater from mid-2015 if the Government (based on the City of Bayswater proposal) has its way.

The devil put temptation in the way of local councils that sought to aggrandise themselves and some duly sold their souls in a faustian pact.

Now the devil is calling in the price.

One More Step Forward

The additional legal action initiated by the Shire of Peppermint Grove was due to have a Directions Hearing this morning. 

The hearing was vacated by agreement between the parties, which means that it will proceed to a full hearing on 25th November with the original legal action.

And the document released by the State Government in October (below) provides clear evidence that it made 'decisions' before the poll process has run its course - despite the clear provision of the Local Government Act that the Minister can only accept or reject after the results of any polls are known.

 

Vincent Council Goes For Wrong Target Again

I was critical of Vincent Council for its focus on 'One-in, All-in' last year, when I believed it would have been better to focus on the potential for not becoming part of the City of Perth. Like too many councils, many of which are now regretting what they did, Vincent allowed itself to be suckered in to presenting its own proposal for amalgamation.

Recent events appear to have proved me right, with the LGAB recommending the 'One in, All in' proposal but the Premier and, reluctantly, the Minister didn't like it so are going to deal with us by proposed legislation that is so preposterous that it now 'requires' counter-action by the City of Vincent.

Just when the focus should be on establishing our right to a poll under the Local Government Act, Vincent Council has put out a petition seeking a referendum in opposition to the proposed City of Perth Act.

Now, I agree the City of Perth Act proposed by the Premier would be an abomination and severely detrimental to the Vincent community and to democracy, but it is some way off, and the immediate priority should be to establish the right to a Dadour Poll - that opportunity will not come again and if we don't take advantage of it we can rightly be labelled as not serious about electors' democratic rights.

Frankly, there is zero likelihood of getting a referendum out of this Premier, who continues to maintain that his process is proper and above-board. He knows what the outcome of such a referendum would be and he doesn't knowingly set himself up for embarrassing defeat.

Calling for such a referendum is a purely populist device that will make Council and those who sign feel good - but will achieve nothing. On the other hand, the law is on our side with regard to a Dadour poll (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/lgab-is-wrong-wrong-wrong.html).

One councillor has taken me to task for 'confusing' electors given that the City of Vincent was running its own petition about the proposed City of Perth Act. I only heard about this petition indirectly late yesterday, by which time my Dadour petition had already been out there for several days.

That councillor was him/herself confused as (s)he wrote: We are in a different position than other Councils now who are actually going to be merged or amalgamated as a direct result of the LGAB recommendations being accepted. How are we entitled to a poll Ian?

Well, Councillor, the Local Government Act clearly states that the right to a poll is triggered by the recommendation of the LGAB not by any purported Ministerial response to it. Indeed, the Minister legally cannot respond to an LGAB recommendation that triggers a poll right until the poll process has been concluded.

I was also surprised that the councillor expressed concern about the "significantly high benchmarks required for a result", which is an incredibly defeatist attitude. Other Councils are pressing for a poll despite that and some, but probably not all, will achieve the requirements. But it won't take many successful ones for the whole house of cards to collapse.

We have been critical of the Minister's process and his attempts to bend the law, so surely we have to show faith in the democratic process - if we do not, we are no better than Simpson - effectively saying "the law won't give us what we want, so we'll change the rules".

The Communities' Action Alliance strategy of nurturing the Nationals and targeting key Liberals to encourage them not to support such an Act is much more likely to pay off as it is focussed and allows the Premier to back down in the party room, in the face of the threat of being defeated in Parliament, rather than in the public arena. We know, for example, that he did precisely that in respect of his move to remove the Dadour poll provision of the Act.

At Last - Someone Understands Community of Interest

Perth Voice, 15th November 2014

At last someone who understands community of interest - the Local Government Advisory Board and the Minister for Local Government certainly don't.

As Barrie Baker writes:

It can hardly be said that splitting Mount Lawley across three municipalities, with their separate policies, town planning schemes, traffic policies, etc will further the coherence of the suburb and foster its sense of community.

Well said, Barrie.

Power Of Networking - And The Power Of One

Just two days ago, I sent out emails to a number of people in Vincent asking them if they would collect signatures and/or use their networks to help gather signatures on the petition requesting a poll on the future of the City of Vincent.

Well, the first return just arrived in the mail - not from one of those to whom I sent my email but from someone to whom one of them forwarded it.

Just one signature - but the power of one is very great.

Petitions don't just have to be about door-knocking and walking the streets with a clipboard - although we definitely need that.

Petitions are also about giving people who may not have the inclination or the ability to do that the opportunity to contribute. Each of us has family, friends and colleagues. It doesn't need very many people to get signatures from a few of those in our close circles - and ask them to do the same - for the numbers to mount up.

If this inspires you to want to help, you can download the petition form from http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/signatures-needed-to-save-vincent.html.

Signatures Needed To Save Vincent - Petition For Poll

As noted here previously (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/not-quite-right-but-scandalous-anyway.html), the electors of Vincent are entitled to a poll on the recommendation of the Local Government Advisory Board. To get this to happen, we need 250 signatures on a petition - as some people may be unsure whether they are on the Vincent electoral roll, we need to aim for up to 350 signatures.

Can you help get those signatures - even just a few, from your neighbours and friends will be a great help. Even just your own will help. You don't need to fill the form completely for it to be valid.

You can print off the petition form by right-clicking on the image at bottom right, saving the image, then printing it.

Alternatively, email me at ian_ker@hotmail.com and I'll send you the form by return email.

We are aiming to present the petition, along with others, on either Tuesday or Wednesday next week, so please return signed forms (need to be hard copies not scans) at 92 Vincent Street, Mt Lawley or let me know where/when to pick them up Monday at the latest.

Headlines You'd Love To See

But unfortunately it's about footy.

Ah! Well! We can dream.

In any case, it would simply have Homer calling for more shark drumlines.

Thanks to Colin Latchem for alerting me to this one.

Open Letter To Ian Britza, MLA

Ian Britza, MLA, Morley

Dear Mr Britza

You have been much-quoted or misquoted in the media today on the subject of whether you might stand as an independent in 2017.

Whatever the rights or wrongs of the reporting, there was one very clear statement that you "uphold the truths, goals and objectives of the Liberal Party."

There are many in WA who currently think that would be a very good reason for standing as an independent, as the current WA Government, in particular the Premier, clearly does not "uphold the truths, goals and objectives of the Liberal Party".

For those of us who are concerned about the future of local government and of democracy in Western Australia, the past 18 months have been a time of great disillusionment with the political process in general and with the current supposedly-Liberal government in particular. I have heard many 'lifelong Liberal voters' state publicly that they will not vote for the Liberal Party at the next WA state election simply because of the appalling way that local government so-called reform has been handled.

In the case of your own electorate of Morley, whilst the suburb of Morley is in Bayswater, which sees itself as one of the winners out the chaos, half of your electorate is in the City of Stirling and a part of this (between Wellington Street, Morley Drive and Alexander Drive) has been recommended to be moved from Stirling into Bayswater. This includes the important recreation area of Dianella Open Space.

We know that the City of Stirling is very unhappy at losing 15% of its population, mainly to Bayswater, especially since there is no opportunity for residents to have a say in whether they wish to leave Stirling.

If the voters of Stirling are as unhappy as their Council, this would be a good reason for creating some distance from the autocratic and authoritarian actions of the Premier and the Minister for Local Government. 

One way of demonstrating that you do indeed uphold Liberal values would be for you to support motions in the Legislative Assembly that oppose forced changes to local governments in Perth. The Assembly has already passed two such motions 'on the voices' and the Legislative Council has passed another. A further motion in the Assembly was on the Notice Paper for today, having been adjourned from November last year - the 'chaos and confusion' have increased considerably since then.

Promoted Beyond His Level Of Competence?

WA Local Government Association President, Troy Pickard, has been elected President of the Australian Local Government Association.

In view of the unsatisfactory role WALGA has played in local government so-called reform in Perth, it is to be sincerely hoped that Pickard doesn't shaft local government in the rest of Australia the way he has in Perth.

It would be ironic if other local councils were to follow the Nedlands lead and withdraw from WALGA so that Troy is left heading up a dead duck in WA.

As I have argued in a previous post on this blog (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/time-to-scrap-walga-and-start-again.html), the WALGA model is flawed as a policy model because it doesn't (or, more accurately, can't) reflect diversity among its membership. 

It is also flawed as a business model - it might have been relevant in the 1990s but online competition between suppliers is now so great that having a 'broker' is no longer necessary or even useful and economies of scale in purchasing are disappearing in most service areas. 

WALGA is an unnecessary and expensive overhead, supporting and supported by state government in a symbiotic relationship that systematically excludes many of WALGA's members. 

Congerton Conflict Of Interest Is Confirmed

Conflict of interest is a very serious issue and one that has plagued the Local Government Advisory Board due to the scale and complexity of the Government's local government so-called reform process. This scale and complexity was beyond the ability of the LGAB to influence - although it could have stated that it was unable to consider the 38 proposals as they went well beyond what the Local Government Act envisaged as the role of the Board.

However, this latest conflict of interest is purely of the Board's making - more specifically of the Chairman of the Board, Mel Congerton.

For him to express an interest in being appointed a commissioner while the Board was still assessing the proposals creates a clear conflict of interest and, given that he knew what the Board's likely recommendations were at that time, is the moral equivalent of insider trading.

This is more that just a personal matter for Mr Congerton. It has the potential to bring down everything that the Board has done.

Briza Backtracks - Loses Credibility - Will Lose Seat?

A hectoring phone call from Col Pot could have been all it took to get Morley MLA, Ian Briza to return to the Liberal fold - but he shouldn't think this has made him more secure.

Either his original 'threat' was not to be taken seriously (for which 'taken out of context' is pollyspeak weasel word) or he has been exposed as weak and indecisive. Either way, the electors of Morley will be taking a very close look at Mr Briza from now on.

It was disappointing that Briza made no mention of the chaotic local government so-called reform process. Whilst the suburb of Morley is in Bayswater, which sees itself as one of the winners out the chaos, half of Mr Briza's Morley electorate is in the City of Stirling and a part of this (between Wellington Street, Morley Drive and Alexander Drive) has been recommended to be moved from Stirling into Bayswater. This includes the important recreation area of Dianella Open Space.

We know that the City of Stirling is very unhappy at losing 15% of its population, mainly to Bayswater, especially since there is no opportunity for residents to have a say.

If the voters of Stirling are as unhappy as their Council, Britza is in real trouble. 

WA Council Data Do Not Support Amalgamation

Much has been said and written about the effect of local government so-called reform on Council rates, but the rate in the dollar is not a full measure of financial and economic performance. Most Councils impose a separate rubbish rate (which itself varies from $174/year to $408), but Vincent, Fremantle, East Fremantle, Peppermint Grove, Victoria Park, Claremont and Cottesloe do not. These are all (a) small councils and (b) relatively high rating councils (on GRV). 

This means that the picture of charges and population looks a little different - although neither gives convincing evidence of economies of size. Indeed, even with rates (as distinct from total charges) it is only the Stirling and Joondalup outliers that give any impression at all of such economies.

For total charges, even these outliers are not sufficient to prevent there being a small overall increasing trend. The logic of this suggests that (a) there is no economic or financial case for larger local governments and (b) that, since there is no systematic relationship between size and charges, communities should be given the choice of what size of local government they want.

Trend lines are linear plotted in EXCEL. More complex functions do not show any marked variation from these lines.

Time To Scrap WALGA And Start Again

Time and time again, during this chaotic and drawn-out so-called reform process, WALGA has embarrassed itself and the local government sector by not adequately reflecting the views of local Councils. We shall probably never know the extent to which this is the result of Troy Pickard's imposing himself on the organisation, but it is clear that any supposedly representative organisation that doesn't reflect the diversity of views  held by its members is not serving their interests.

WALGA has consistently supported the amalgamation thrust without acknowledging that many of its members oppose it.

Of late, WALGA pronouncements appear to align more with the state government and keeping its process on track than on making sure the outcome is sensible and supported. It almost seems as though the apparent chastisement of the state government for providing inadequate funding for the process is a smoke-screen to draw attention away from WALGA's sycophancy.

The WALGA model, with zones and State Council, is yet another example of systematic concentration of power at the expense of diversity and democracy.

Each Council is part of a WALGA Zone. Each zone considers an issue and 'instructs' its delegates to State Council, where WALGA policy is determined.

It is easy to see how this model can lead to perverse or undemocratic outcomes. In the case of local government so-called reform, the western suburbs councils and Vincent are all but one of the members of the Central Zone (the other being the City of Perth). The Central Zone, therefore, might be expected to have a large majority view against amalgamations.

Other metropolitan zones are likely to be more evenly split between potential 'winners' and 'losers'.

So we can easily have a majority of zones, but a minority of councils, in favour of amalgamations.

Perhaps scrapping WALGA would be a step too far, although the City of Nedlands seems to be faring quite well without it, but it clearly needs to change and become more representative of the diversity of views held by its members.

In the case of local government reform, I wonder how long it will take for the representatives of non-metropolitan councils to catch up with the admirable and realistic position adopted by the National Party.

Pickard and WALGA Are Wrong Again

Whilst Troy Pickard and WALGA are right to draw attention to the complexity, cost and inadequate timelines for Col and Homer's forced amalgamations, they clearly don't have a clue about process and democracy.

Pickard states: "Now that the boundaries have been finalised".

Well, sorry Troy, they haven't been finalised. In purporting to accept or reject recommendations at this stage, Simpson has simply exposed himself to yet more legal action.

Five of the LGAB recommendations are subject to potentially-binding poll provisions - see http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/lgab-is-wrong-wrong-wrong.html for why it is five and not the LGAB's stated three.

Should any of these be voted down, there are potential consequences for other recommendations from the LGAB - and so the sorry saga continues.

There are also claims from many other communities that they are being wrongly denied a poll - and there are now two legal actions.

A lot of water to flow under many bridges, yet, Troy, before anyone can say that the boundaries have been finalised.

And Homer really ought to be told to keep his mouth shut - although even then he'd probably still find ways of putting his foot in it.

Value In 'Resisting Change'

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-07/council-merger-backlash-grows/5876532

There was a strange argument from Joe Lenzo (Property Council) in the 7.30 Report yesterday - not that there is anything surprising in that to those who know of the Property Council's behind-the-scenes role in local government so-called reform for Perth. 

He said something about Western Australians resisting change when it is proposed but embracing it when it happens (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-08/developers-pan-nationals-over-council-merger-opposition/5876806), as if there were something contradictory here. 

My take on this is that it is the resisting that helps filter out the bad changes so that those that do happen are more likely to be embraced - we don't just roll over and accept someone's bright idea based on their own prejudices - like Joe Lenzo's view that local government should be nothing more than a rubber stamp for property developers.

21st Century Democracy Is Possible

Extract from a thought-provoking piece on 21st Century Democracy (http://www.policy-network.net/pno_detail.aspx?ID=4706&title=Time-for-21st-century-democracy). It's about the United Kingdom, but could equally be about Australia or Western Australia.

The way that the world has changed is leading to a clash between two contrasting cultures.   Traditional, top down, elite models of democracy and accountability are no longer sustainable in an age of a digitally more open-society. …people see politicians as out of touch and remote.   What we need are two major changes. One is the recognition by institutions that they are now making decisions in an open world.  That even if they make decisions in private (which in certain cases they clearly have to) they should recognise that at some point those decisions may need to be justified.  Therefore every decision should be made on the basis that if it were open it would be deemed as legitimate.

The second is the development of bottom up accountability – we have to develop mechanisms where accountability is not mediated through institutions (as is the case with parliamentary accountability).  In its conclusion, the Hansard Society report proposes new technology could be used to allow citizens rather than MPs to ask questions at Prime Minister’s question time.  This is one of many forms of citizen led accountability that could reinforce the openness of decision making.

New technology creates the opportunity to move away from 19th century democracy.  Technology can be used to change the way decisions are made, how citizens are involved and how institutions are held to account.  This is already happening with social groups using social media, on-line petitions and mobile technologies as part of their campaigns.  However, this process needs to be formalised (such as in the Hansard Society’s suggestion for citizen’s questions).  There is also a need for more user friendly ways of analysing big data around government performance.  Big data creates many new ways in which decisions can be opened up and critically reviewed.  We also need much more explicit policies of leak and whistleblowing so that those who do reveal the inner workings of governments are not criminalised. 

Fundamentally, the real change is about treating citizens as grown-ups recognising that they can be privy to the details of the policy-making process.  There is a great irony in the playground behaviour of Prime Minister’s question time and the patronising attitudes of political elites towards voters (which tends to infantilise citizens as not to have the expertise to fully participate).  The most important change is that institutions start to act as if they are operating in an open society where they are directly accountable and hence are in a position to start regaining the trust of the people.   The closed world of institutions is no longer viable in a digital age.

Cottesloe Forum on YouTube

For those who were unable to attend the Western Suburbs Alliance forum at Cottesloe on 26th October (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/community-outrage.html), a video of the full session is now available - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjizn1QPuls#t=2988.

Unfortunately the file is too big to embed here, but the link above will take you to the YouTube site.

Sound is poor in places, largely due to the acoustics and the PA system, but you'll get most of it.

Not Quite Right - But Scandalous Anyway

Post Newspapers, 8th November 2014

I applaud the Councils for Democracy for so graphically highlighting the inequity in who gets the opportunity for a poll - but even they haven't got it quite right.

According to the Local Government Advisory Board only South Park (South Perth and Victoria Park), Fremantle (Fremantle and East Fremantle) and Jervoise Bay (Cockburn and Kwinana) have the opportunity for a poll.

But the law says that Vincent/Perth and Riversea (Nedlands, Claremont, Cottesloe, Peppermint Grove and Mosman Park) also have the right to a poll (see http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/lgab-is-wrong-wrong-wrong.html).

Councils for democracy appear to fall between the two.

Even if all five are eventually granted their legal right to a poll, it is still scandalous that the same right is denied to all those others who are going through essentially the same process.

Emperorsaurus Rex

Not my name for Col, but Ben O'Shea's in Inside Cover in Today's West Australian - very effectively brought to life by the accompanying Alston cartoon.

As Ben writes: "If Colin Barnett is  really serious about his legacy, he should mothball that new footy stadium and spend the cash on a robotic Emperorsaurus Rex instead".

And if Tony Simpson is serious about leaving any sort of legacy at all, other than the purely despised kind, he should mothball his grandiose plan for politicising and bankrupting local government in Perth.

But there is more to this than just a blast at Col (and Homer). Methinks it is more than coincidence that IC echoes what I wrote in this blog just over a week ago (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/where-is-21st-century-model-for.html) when he uses the dinosaur metaphor for politicians and political parties. Perhaps it is time to take seriously the need and opportunity for a truly 21st century democracy.

The GRUMPY Party

According to The Roast (ABC2) in its final program pre-emptive review of 2015, "Gina Rinehart and Rupert Murdoch have formed their own political party, saying it was easier than trying to pretend they didn't run the country".

The Roast didn't say what this new political party would have been called, thus missing an opportunity for a cheap laugh, but if the Palmer United Party is popularly called PUP then this one has to be GRUMPY - Gina Rinehart and RUpert Murdoch PartY. 

Yes! OK! I know it should be GRRUMPY, but let's allow a little poetic licence - or simply blame the NewsCorp sub-editor.

Or just call me a grumpy (not GRUMPY) old man.

Shame, Mayor O'Neill, Shame! Democracy Is More Important Than Time

Fremantle Gazette, 4th November 2014

In a response that has, unfortunately, been far too common among local councils in this whole so-called reform process, East Fremantle Mayor, Jim O'Neill, says that a vote "may not end the spectre of amalgamation" and "may waste precious time".

In saying this, he presumably accepts the Minster's unrealistic timetable for so-called reform as being more important than the right of people to have a say in how they are governed.

It was bad enough that Barnett and Simpson consider themselves too important to be bothered by democracy. It is infinitely worse for the leader of one of the few communities guaranteed the right to a poll to say it will be a waste of time.

Shame! Mayor O'Neill, Shame!

Expect A Lot More Of This, Too

Eastern Reporter, 4th November 2014

Winners are grinners and losers, well, who cares. But there is one issue that winners and losers largely appear to agree on - and that is that lack of a ward structure, as recommended by the Local Government Advisory Board, will be detrimental to local government effectively serving its community.

Eastern Reporter, 4th November 2014

Baywater sees itself as a 'winner' and Bassendean as a 'loser' from the so-called reform process, but both see lack of wards as taking the local out of local government - as reported on this blog previously (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/single-ward-fetish.html).

The Mayor of Bayswater is a bit more upbeat, saying that Council can revisit wards after election in October 2015, but fails to mention that this Council would contain a gerrymandered majority from the 'continuing' council (ie Bayswater) - see http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/another-gerrymander.html

There'll Be A Lot More Of This

City of Vincent Budget, 2014-15

Canning Times North, 4th November 2014

Despite the fact that the Local Government Advisory Board is required to consider 'economic factors' in assessing proposals and making its recommendations, there is a world of difference between the financial modelling done by the Treasury for the LGAB and the practical realities when local government is restructured.

Melville is concerned that it's rate base has got smaller and high-value areas are to be replaced by low-rated areas from Canning.

Canning residents will rightly be concerned about how much more they will have to pay, since Canning rates are 20% lower than Melville's.

And the consensus of many mayors is that rates will increase substantially overall, simply to fund the costs of amalgamation, thus adding to the pain for all ratepayers.

Southern Gazette, 4th November 2014