Roe 8 Decision Highlights Deeper Malaise

No doubt many words will be written and spoken (and cartoons drawn), and rightly so, about the Supreme Court decision invalidating the environmental approvals for the contentious Roe 8 highway project across the Beeliar wetlands.

For those who want to find out more, the judgment can be downloaded from http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/supreme/supdcsn.nsf/judgment.xsp?documentId=4DC12FEF66845A8248257F1D00095F93&action=openDocument&SessionID=EA3F2IOG9F.

The Editor of the West Australian is increasingly isolated in supporting Roe 8 and the broader Perth Freight Link, which flies in the face of decades of bipartisan freight planning for Perth and WA - and was cobbled together only to 'replace' MAX light rail funding when then-PM Tony Abbott said the federal government would only help fund road infrastructure, not public transport.

In finding that the Environmental Protection Authority ignored its own policies, Chief Justice Wayne Martin highlights the politicisation, incompetence or worse that has infected too many important decisions of public service and so-called independent agencies. Even now, Barnett's response is that Roe 8 will go ahead because he'll find a way around the Supreme Court's judgment.

There is another court case in progress that highlights precisely the same issue - this one about the Development Assessment Panels (DAPs) ignoring the requirement to have regard to local Town Planning Schemes. Wayne Martin's judgment will give great heart the many who are aghast at the DAPs' riding roughshod over long-standing community expectations that have been enshrined in their local town planning schemes, which have the status of law under the Planning and Development Act, 2005.

Why is it that we can no longer trust our governments or agencies that supposedly represent our interests to do so impartially, intelligently and with integrity? Why do we have to resort to the courts to ensure that they do the jobs they were elected (no mention of the PFL in the 2013 WA election) or employed to do?

Voters Don't Like Broken Promises

I've written a number of times about the way in which the New South Wales government is repeating the mistakes of the WA government in trying to force amalgamations, but now there's a lesson that the WA government should heed from NSW.

http://www.governmentnews.com.au/2015/12/council-mergers-blamed-for-13-by-election-backlash-in-nsw-coalition-heartland/

Lies and Fallacies - In NSW This Time

I often don't agree with the reported views of NSW radio presenter Alan Jones, but on local government forced amalgamations he is spot on. 

I've just watched the video of his address to the rally in Sydney with a total sense of deja vu (not to mention vindication) as he was saying all the same things we said here in WA in our successful community-based campaign against forced local government amalgamations - including lies ('no forced amalgamations' before the election) and fallacious arguments ('economies of scale'). 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soxRTTFPgDM&feature=youtu.be

Another one bites the dust - but will Simpson keep him on?

I don't know whether Mel Congerton was a good councillor for City of Swan, but he certainly compromised the independence of the Local Government Advisory Board in the local government so-called reform process.

The question is whether Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, will keep him as Chair of the LGAB now that he has been defeated by the now-youngest councillor in the Metropolitan area. Under the Local Government Act, the Minister's nomination to the LGAB, who is required to be the Chair of the board, is not required to be an elected member of a local government.

And will WALGA have a view on this?

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/29853911/younger-faces-take-places-on-councils

Totally predictable - but real culprit is NSW state government

Essentially same story as in WA - but equally flawed.

So-called independent report - but conclusions inevitable given years of rate-capping and cost-shifting by NSW state governments.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-20/most-nsw-councils-not-fit-for-future-ipart-finds/6868348

First Brick Falls Out of the City of Perth Wall

Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, acts to prevent Lord Mayor guilty of misconduct from judging others accused of misconduct. No-brainer, but good to see.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-13/perth-lord-mayor-removed-from-local-government-standards-panel/6851386

Is Time Running Out for Out-Of-Touch Perth City Council?

It's getting increasingly difficult to see how the City of Perth Council can emerge unscathed and functioning after these revelations.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-12/review-of-perth-city-council-may-be-needed-minister/6847238

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/29788660/state-government-to-review-perth-city-council

As in WA, so in NSW - and so the sorry saga continues

Needs no commentary from me (at least for those in WA who have already been through this - and won, thanks to people power).

A few quotes suffice to show that state government try the same tricks wherever you are.

NSW councils have long argued that rate-pegging, cost-shifting and freezing the indexation of Financial Assistance Grants have constrained their revenues, while simultaneously slugging them with bigger bills for infrastructure and services.

He said that the state government had not provided good evidence mergers would benefit councils financially, apart from promising access to cheaper loans, which would still need to be repaid.

The Minister is being incredibly duplicitous: using a longstanding funding problem as cover for an ideologically-driven move to increase control over local communities and neighbourhoods.

And it isn't even in the interests of the party of Government:

State Premier Mike Baird’s amalgamation drive is causing all sorts of problems for Liberal MPs, who fear a backlash from the branches that elected them and from the general public.

http://www.governmentnews.com.au/2015/10/council-peak-body-gives-nsw-government-minister-a-serve

Transparency and Integrity in City of Perth

Reece Harley either knew something was in the wind - or he should go out and buy a lottery ticket, for his decision to campaign on transparency and integrity is paying-off big-time - particularly now Deputy Lord Mayor, Rob Butler, has been caught in the non-disclosure net (http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/deputy-lord-mayor-of-perth-rob-butler-fails-to-declare-trip-to-malaysia/news-story/c40b9303dff3c2fbe9e9c612fb54e4d8) and the other seven City of Perth councillors (other than Reece Harley) have publicly fallen in behind the Lord Mayor who is under a personal cloud.

And for those who missed it on Thursday, here (at foot of this post) is Daniel Emerson's forensic analysis of the issue and the Lord Mayor's responses to the Crime and Corruption Commission's findings.

http://www.reeceharleyforperth.com.au/media. Click to enlarge.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/29756163/scaffidi-wins-obfuscation-gold

Strange Day - Now I Agree With Simpson

Regular and long-time readers of this blog will be aware that I have a long-running and fundamental difference of view with both Premier Colin Barnett and Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, on local government matters. So it is with some trepidation that I follow my agreement earlier today with Col (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/i-agree-with-col-pity-col-doesnt.html) with an agreement with Tony Simpson.

According to the ABC (below): 

Local Government Minister Tony Simpson stopped short of saying Ms Scaffidi should resign, but said a member of Cabinet who acted in the same way would be sacked.

The ABC also reported that:

Mr Simpson flagged changes to annual returns in the local government sector including that they be lodged more frequently and be made more accessible to the public.

I agree, but it is only a couple of months since local governments refused to take an opportunity to support doing just that (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/rocks-in-their-heads.html), so local councils will now be on the back foot and the Minister has the high moral ground.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-07/lord-mayor-scaffidi-unable-to-release-in-information-defence/6833886

I Agree With Col. Pity Col Doesn't!

Paul Murray thinks that the CCC findings about Lisa Scaffidi are nothing more than a technicality. Premier Colin Barnett says her actions represented "a poor decision exacerbated by the failure to disclose it".

For once, I agree with Col - the CCC findings are of significant concern in terms of the integrity of government (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/transparency-anyone.html).

But there's a certain cognitive dissonance in Colin Barnett's response to the CCC findings

But this should be equally so at all levels of government. Indeed, Barnett himself reported said that "if one of his ministers had behaved in this way he would probably look at resignation"

It is not good enough for him to criticise Lisa Scaffidi (local government) and Bronwyn Bishop (federal government) by evoking the 'pub test'. He must apply the same criterion to his own government - and Dean Nalder in particular.

West Australian, 7th October 2015. Click to enlarge.

West Australian, 7th October 2015. Click to enlarge.

Transparency, Anyone?

The City of Vincent Mayor, John Carey, has been subject to criticism for his calls for greater transparency in local government, including the suggestion of publicly-available registers of contacts with developers (see http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/rocks-in-their-heads.html).

How delightfully ironic (not to mention illuminating), therefore, to see a letter from City of Perth Councillor, James Limnios, criticising Lord Mayoral candidate, Reece Harley, for emphasising the importance of transparency, on the same day as the Crime and Corruption Commission makes serious adverse findings against current Lord Mayor, Lisa Scaffidi.  (https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/29723044/lisa-scaffidi-failed-to-declare-gifts-travel-ccc; http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-06/perth-mayors-beijing-olympics-trip-with-bhp-unwise-barnett-says/6830684; http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/perth-lord-mayor-lisa-scaffidi-signally-failed-in-duties-corruption-and-crime-commission/story-fnhocxo3-1227557825976?sv=db7d3f447044c1010f885e64ef91dd9e&utm_source=Perth%20Now&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial).

Councillor Limnios apparently considers that 'minor individual councillor expenses' are 'frivolous matters'. He obviously fails to see the intrinsic relationship between honesty and integrity in small matters and in large ones. 

Lord Mayor, Lisa Scaffidi, meanwhile, evokes a distinct sense of deja entendu in blaming inexperience and the advice of officials ("I was a brand new Lord Mayor and I was entitled to rely on the guidance offered by people far more experienced than me in terms of governance" - https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/29725980/premier-weighs-into-scaffidi-scandal) - conveniently ignoring the fact that she had been a City of Perth Councillor for two terms prior to that.

She also appears to claim the Bronwyn Bishop defence that if found out it is sufficient to apologise. I doubt that any legal system acknowledges that as a valid defence. Bronwyn did, to her credit, repay the money (albeit reluctantly).

Even Premier, Colin Barnett, reportedly has said that "if one of his ministers had behaved in this way he would probably look at resignation"(https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/29725980/lord-mayor-digs-in-over-ccc-findings).

West Australian, 6th October, 2015

Not In The Property Council's Backyard

The Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review Committee of the Legislative Council has released its report on its Review of the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011  (http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/parliament/commit.nsf/(Report+Lookup+by+Com+ID)/37EC833DC716AD7048257EBA00275961/$file/us.pdr.150908.rpf.093.xx.pdf).

The WA Business News has published a comment piece on the report (https://www.businessnews.com.au/article/Complaints-process-focus-of-DAP-inquiry - see foot of this post), giving prominence to the views of the Property Council - but also quoting the disturbing fact that just 24 out of 209 projects assessed by DAPs in 2014-15 were rejected - that's less than 12%. No wonder many people are worried that the DAPs trample on communities and their rights.

The Property Council response to the report on Development Assessment Panels ('Complaints focus of DAP inquiry', Business News, 11th September 2015) is so predictable as to be almost laughable. Of course the Property Council supports a report that doesn't address the key issues of community interest and variations from planning schemes and policies. 

We all know that DAPs favour development interests, but Joe Lenzo doesn't tell us why the community interest should be ignored in this way.

Unless Joe Lenzo already lives in an apartment tower, would he be happy for one the DAPs' outrageous approved developments to be built in his neighbourhood? Even if he does live in an apartment tower, would he be happy about another tower intruding into his view.

I suspect that were such a tower to be approved by a DAP, Mr Lenzo might well have a different view on third-party appeals.

Perhaps one reason the development industry appears to be so keen on isolated high-rise/high-density rather than towers grouped in centres with good access (eg around train stations) is that it can sell the uninterrupted views at a premium.

It is, incidentally, worth noting that third-party appeal rights do exist in other places and do not appear to have the dire consequences Mr Lenzo fears.

In Queensland, for example, the Sustainable Planning Act, 2009, provides for any person who has made a proper submission on a development application to have a right of appeal against a development decision or in respect of conditions that form part of that approval. The Queensland Government is currently reviewing its planning legislation (http://www.dilgp.qld.gov.au/planning-reform) and proposes to retain the third-party appeal right provision.

It seems to me that restricting that right to those who have expressed an interest in or concern about a development proposal at the assessment stage, through making a submission, is a sensible way of managing third party appeal rights. Those with a genuine interest would have this right available to them, but the 'johnny-come-lately' and opportunistic objectors would be precluded.

Let's not forget, also, that appeals are not costless; the playing field is not level. Individuals and community groups rarely have much in the way of resources, but the development industry has deep pockets with the further advantage that appeal costs are tax-deductible.

Any talk of appeal rights is predicated, however, on the decision-making process itself being open, participatory and accountable. It is by no means clear that the DAPs come within the proverbial bull's roar of this state of affairs.

The Legislative Council Committee's report also criticises local governments for 'outdated and inconsistent planning schemes', apparently ignoring the facts that (a) the WA Planning Commission itself is often a major contributor to delays in adoption of new planning schemes and (b) the WAPC requires schemes to comply with its 'Model Scheme Text' under the Town Planning Regulations.

If local governments are to be held to account for delays in reviewing town planning schemes, let's also apply the same scrutiny to the WA Planning Commission.

More Vengeance against Local Councils

The Ministers for Planning and Finance have announced reductions in "red tape" for homeowners, small businesses and industry. These changes are said to mean that "renovating or constructing a new planning compliant single house will no longer require approval, and small to medium-sized businesses won't have to seek approval to change a property from one permitted use to another."

Now this sounds like the sort of thing that no-one could reasonably object to, but the catch comes in considering how 'compliant' or 'permitted' are to be assessed.

A large part of what local government does in respect of planning and development applications is, in fact, assessing whether an application does comply or is permitted and, if it doesn't, what the areas of non-compliance are and whether they are acceptable.

Someone still has to determine that the single house or extension is planning-compliant or that the new 'permitted use is actually permitted (we all know of 'consulting rooms' that are really something else entirely) and, even if it is, whether additional conditions are required. If premises change from one 'permitted use' to another, for example, might it require changes under health regulations or for disability access?

Anyone who has been on a council will know that the applicant doesn't always get it right - and in some cases wilfully tries to pull the wool over council's eyes.

If local governments are to be removed from this role, it is, at the very least, incumbent on the Ministers to support them when (not if) they require changes to part-built or completed buildings on the basis that they don't comply with planning regulations.

Did I hear something about pigs flying?

https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/Barnett/2015/08/Reducing-red-tape-for-homeowners.aspx

None So Blind………

David Caddy says that 'DAPs, SAT must stick to local and state planning policies' (Post News, Letters, 8th August - see below). 

He echoes very closely the words of Gail McGowan, Director-General, Department of Planning, who wrote, in another letter (also below), that decisions made by DAPs "must be in accordance with local government planning schemes, state planning policies and sound planning principles".

Clearly neither of them has been paying much attention to what the Development Assessment Panels have actually been doing, as described in the Post article 'Dodgy DAP system slammed' (1st August - see foot of this post), which cites numerous examples of decisions inconsistent with town planning schemes.

But at least we can see that Gail McGowan, as Department of Planning CEO, is simply saying what her Minister insists that she say in support of the Government's pro-developer agenda.

David Caddy, however, is about as transparent as the DAP and SAT processes he supports. He has been a professional town planner for over 35 years and states in his professional resumé that he "has been successfully representing developers in Town Planning Appeals for nearly three decades" (https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/wh1.thewebconsole.com/wh/4154/images/David-Caddy.pdf).

At the very least, in writing a letter so closely aligned to his professional interests, he should have stated his affiliations. As it is, most readers of the Post will be unaware of his links to the development industry and would be likely to take his statements at face value.

If he did do so, and it was an editorial decision at the Post not to print it, then I apologise unreservedly to David.

For the sake of similar transparency, I acknowledge that, when I was an elected Councillor for the then Town (now City) of Vincent (1995-2009), I was responsible for Council's adopting the practice of being represented in appeals to the SAT (and its predecessor, the Town Planning Appeals Tribunal) by (a) an elected member, (b) an independent town planner and (c) a member of the affected community. In this way we had a 75% success rate in defending appeals.

Of course, this was before the DAPs, notwithstanding the claims of Gail McGowan and David Caddy, changed the rules and said, through their decisions, that it was okay to ignore town planning schemes and planning policies.

Rocks In Their Heads

That's what the majority of WA local Councils seem to have.

Faced with a hostile Premier intent on revenge for his defeat on local government so-called reform (which was really nothing more that forced amalgamations) and a Minister who just the previous day flagged a range of punitive measures against local government, WALGA's AGM voted 172-46 against claiming the high moral ground through taking the initiative to develop a range of reforms covering such matters as transparency, travel, gifts, hospitality and contact with developers.

Mind you, watching Simpson deliver his speech, I got the distinct impression he was reading Barnett's words and didn't put much energy into them. Delivery was very wooden, even for him, and the way he left the podium very much gave the impression of "thank God that's over".

If this motion went through the normal WALGA process, delegates would have had opportunity to have it discussed at Council - but how many, I wonder, did so.

Delegates to the WALGA AGM are delegates - and must vote as their Council determines. So do we presume that the vast majority of Councils feel they have something to hide - or are they simply too unconcerned with how they are perceived to think about it.

The Barnett so-called reform was entirely wrong-headed if real reform, as distinct from larger, more-politicised councils, was the objective. But if Councils persist in this head-in-the-sand attitude, they might not find their communities so supportive next time Col wields his big stick.

Col Pot's Potty Economics

Yet again, Colin Barnett shows he doesn't understand local government - not to mention having incredible cheek to lecture others on financial responsibility when he has presided over economic disaster, driven by his 'captain's picks' of infrastructure spending.

If the rates on an individual property go up by $600, as he instances, this is almost certainly due to either (a) the Valuer General revaluing properties (as is required every few years) and increasing the value of some by more than others or (b) the property being revalued as a result of improvements, additions or alterations.

In the former case, even if Council rate revenue were to remain the same, some properties would pay more and others less.

Looked at another way, the highest rate increase for 2015/16 is 8% (Victoria Park). For this to equate to $600, the previous rates payable must have been $7,500 - which implies a 'Gross Rental Value' (the basis on which rates are calculated) of just under $100,000. By comparison, the GRV of my house in Mt Lawley is about one-quarter of that - even the 8% rate increase would be $150 - not $600.

So it looks like the $600, if, indeed, it is a real figure and not just a figment of Col's imagination, is most likely largely the result of revaluation, for one reason or another, or the property is a commercial one not, as many people would have assumed, a residential one (ie the case facing most people). Of course, $600 is important to business as well as to households, but Col shouldn't be misleading us into thinking about how $600 would affect us as individuals.

As In WA, So In NSW

I have previously remarked on how the NSW Government is trying to go blindly down the same path as the WA Government on forcing local government amalgamations (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/when-will-state-governments-learn.html).

Fascinating to see how consistent with WA is the NSW community opposition to forced local government amalgamations (http://www.governmentnews.com.au/2015/07/survey-says-72-against-nsw-council-mergers).

Click to enlarge

South Perth Rejects City of Perth Bill

Last night, South Perth City Council voted unanimously to express its strong concerns about a range of aspects of the City of Perth Bill currently before the Legislative Assembly (http://capitalcitycitizenscommittee.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/well-done-south-perth-council.html). 

This could be the game-changer that creates awareness of the dangers of the current City of Perth Bill for all local governments not just those specifically mentioned in the Bill.

Development Assessment Panels Disempower Communities

Development Assessment Panels are supported by the property development industry and the WA State Government but take decisions away from local communities for precisely those developments that have the greatest impact on those communities.

Too often, those panels choose to ignore the requirements of local planning schemes and policies that have been developed by local Councils and approved by the WA Planning Commission. 

Too often, their deliberations and decisions are not subject to public scrutiny.

The City of South Perth Residents Association invites you to a meeting of DAP-affected communities to hear of experiences from across the Perth Metropolitan Area. Come to the Como Bowling Club on Wednesday 29th July for a 7.30pm start.

A large turnout is anticipated, so if possible please let Cecilia Brooke know by email (brooke.cecilia@yahoo.com.au) that you will be coming.

Barnett Still Lying About Local Government

Colin Barnett is unhappy about local government rate rises (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-16/council-rates-hikes-not-acceptable-wa-premier-says/6626022) but fails to acknowledge the extent to which increases are a direct result of forcing metropolitan councils to spend ratepayers money on his failed so-called reform process.

CPI is not a relevant measure of cost pressures on local government - not much of your council budget goes on food or housing. Local government cost index has been increasing faster than consumer prices, especially during the resources boom.

Barnett says if ratepayers thought their rates were too high they should look at their council's size and viability. He said that might prompt some to rethink their position on whether council amalgamations are needed. "You can go into parts of Perth and rates will be $2,500, you can go into other parts of Perth and they'll be $1,100," he said.

Well, Col, the highest-charging metropolitan councils are outer ones with large areas to service, low densities and development pressures to support. It is not unexpected that their costs (and hence their charges) are higher. Size is not the issue - the low-charging large councils are ones that are largely-developed.

And it seems he just can't help himself about wanting amalgamations. Don't tell us what to think about local government, though, Col. Local government should be just that - local. If communities want to amalgamate, that's fine - but the initiative should come from them (let's change the Local Government Act so that the Minister can't make formal amalgamation proposals) and they should have the opportunity to call a poll on any proposals or recommendations. 

New Blog: Capital City Citizens' Committee

http://capitalcitycitizenscommittee.blogspot.com.au

I'll still be commenting here on the City of Perth Bill and other local government matters, but there is a new blog on the block (http://capitalcitycitizenscommittee.blogspot.com.au) focussing on what is needed to establish an effective capital city for Western Australia and all Western Australians.

The Capital City belongs to all Western Australians, not just the ratepayers, residents and businesses of the City of Perth. We are all citizens of our Capital City.

As well as drawing attention to the flaws of the current City of Perth Bill and urging its rejection by the Parliament, the CCCC is constructively working to identify the functional and legislative basis for a Capital City of which all Western Australians can be proud.

Liberal MLC, Mark Lewis, Fails Dismally

Liberal MLC Mark Lewis tried to find 'reasons' why country people should support the City of Perth Bill - but, as Cecilia Brooke eloquently points out, he failed dismally.

No Consultation (Again) = Disrespect

I have previously drawn attention to lack of consultation (and denial of it) in this blog - http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/porkies-in-parliament.html and http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/simpson-nonsense-and-inconsistency-again.html.

Jane Boxall's letter in today's West Australian demonstrates that this lack of consultation is so all-pervasive as to amount to disrespect.

The West Australian, 6th July 2015

Councils for Democracy Alive and Well

As Mosman Park Mayor, on Norris, said, "it looks like CfD will have an ongoing vital role in local government".

There is most certainly a need for an alternative and more effective voice than WALGA to pursue the interests of all local governments and their communities.

There is also a crying need for continued opposition to the Barnett government's flawed ideological pursuit of so-called reform in local government.

Yes, there is room for improvement in local government.

No, the pig-headed Barnett/Simpson approach is not the way to achieve improvement - instead it wastes resources on trying to achieve change that would, if achieved, be at best ineffective and more likely counter-productive.

When Will State Governments Learn?

When will state governments learn that local government is not just about economic efficiency but also about a sense of community and identity? 

Where there are 'economies of scale' (and the evidence is that there are very few), councils can (and do) work together to share resources or to outsource functions to other councils. 

Where there are no economies of scale (most local government activities, according to the evidence), all amalgamation achieves is a loss of community identity - and the cost of changing everything from letterheads and signs to computer systems.

The loss of community identity and the lack of synergy in proposed amalgamations is epitomised by the proposed merger of Queanbeyan and Palerang Councils which have "fundamentally different demographics", with Palerang being largely a rural council, dealing with or delivering services into the farming community, small rural villages and towns, whereas  Queanbeyan is essentially an urban council (below right).

Good luck to the NSW communities that are resisting the pressure from the NSW Government. I can understand why some have chosen to submit a Plan B, as many Councils did here in Western Australia, but I'm not sure this is really the way to go as the Plan B implies an acceptance of amalgamations that are not wanted by these councils or their communities.

The Ideological Madness Continues - In NSW

Holroyd Council "tick[s] the full seven benchmarks … operating performance, home source revenue, asset renewal, infrastructure backlog, asset maintenance, debt service cover and real operating expenditure" but Parramatta wants to take it over.

The Australian Local Government Association opposes forced amalgamations (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/deja-vu.html).

But the State Government "has not ruled out forced amalgamations if councils cannot reach consensus" on council numbers reduction set in train by the State Government itself.

This sounds horribly familiar to those of us in WA.

CCCC Thanks to Shane Love and The Nationals

A few days delay in publishing the CCCC letter thanking Shane Love and the Nationals for sticking to their principles - but the West gets there in the end.

Deja Vu

In an almost exact repeat of the so-called reform process in WA, we have the NSW (also Liberal) Government reneging on a promise not to force local government amalgamations and then going ahead and doing it.

Pity (well, not really) former WALGA president, Troy Pickard, now President of the Australian Local Government Association, walking slap bang into the middle of the same fight in which he so singularly failed to distinguish himself in WA.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-19/local-councils-vote-against-nsw-amalgamation-proposal/6558832

Simpson Nonsense and Inconsistency Again

On 21st May, Simpson told the Parliament that he was "working with the City of Subiaco" (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/porkies-in-parliament.html).

On 18th June, he told the Parliament that "one letter has gone from the department to request a meeting with Subiaco CEO and Mayor", but that he has had no reply. In view of the Subiaco Mayor's statement that the City of Subiaco has had no contact from the department or the Minister since March, why hasn't the Minister checked that the letter was actually received. Perhaps it's still sitting in his out-tray waiting for him to sign it.

On The Parliamentary Record

Not that we needed it to be so, given the public statement in the West Australian on Tuesday, but still good to see it confirmed in the Parliament.

Bad Day For Barnett

So-called 'maverick' Liberal MP, Rob Johnson, votes against the Government. Barnett's petulant response is to say Johnson won't get Liberal endorsement in 2017 - despite the fact that such endorsement is not at the whim of the Premier.

And the Nationals affirm their intention to vote against the City of Perth Bill.

It's really good to see that at least some in politics (and, yes, there are others - but too few) are willing to take a stand on principle.

However, the current Bill is not only about boundaries - although it does give them too much importance, which is both an affront to democracy and a distraction from what should be the main aim of enhancing our Capital City.

The remainder of the Bill is poorly thought out and does little or nothing to establish a true Capital City.

Colin Barnett's View of the Magna Carta

http://www.bl.uk/collection-items/burnt-copy-of-magna-carta-with-the-seal-attached

Today is the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta.

Magna Carta, meaning ‘The Great Charter’, is one of the most famous documents in the world. Originally issued by King John of England (r.1199-1216) as a practical solution to the political crisis he faced in 1215, Magna Carta established for the first time the principle that everybody, including the king, was subject to the law (http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-an-introduction).

800 years later, the Magna Carta remains a cornerstone of the British (and hence Australian) system of government and law. However, one could be forgiven for concluding that this burnt original (one of four originals) of the Great Charter is how Colin Barnett sees it.

We have hope, however. 

Perth people power has put WA’s treacherous king of the 21st century on notice and has already forced him to run up the white flag over forced amalgamations.

Next, the people, through their representatives in the WA Parliament, will reject his egregious City of Perth Bill in its current form. 

A Capital City for All: The Capital City Citizens' Committee

The push against the now-failed local government so-called reform process succeeded, in large part, because it was diverse, not centrally organised and every one could find their own role to play. The City of Perth Bill is a different kind of threat - a very specific one but still one that affects each and every one of us in WA.

That is why we have decided to adopt a more organised approach - although this should not deter anyone from doing their own bit as and when they can.

We firmly believe that the Capital City deserves and needs different governance provisions from other local governments, but the very nature of the Capital City means that its actions affect us all. In that sense every West Australian is a citizen of the Capital City - hence the name we have chosen for our endeavour.

The Capital City Citizens' Committee (CCCC) will:

1. Document the flaws of the current Bill and the threats posed by ambiguity and lack of accountability.

2. Develop proposals that will:

—Enhance governance, planning and development of a true Capital City

—Include the community and key stakeholders

—Provide genuine accountability to the Parliament, the City of Perth Council and the community 

3. Lobby Members of Parliament to oppose the current Bill and to support the Capital City we all deserve. 

https://localgovtsubiaco.wordpress.com/2015/06/12/capital-city-citizens-committee-is-formed/