Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, Minister.

Click to enlarge

There is no surprise in Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, releasing a Crime and Corruption Commission report that found 'systemic weaknesses' in local government procurement processes so soon after his ignominious defeat on local government so-called reform.

No surprise either in his calling it a 'wake-up call' for local government.

The CCC found that "of 13 investigations into allegations of serious misconduct in local governments last year, eight showed serious flaws in how councils supervised the purchase of goods and services". That's eight for 130 councils and however many purchasing decisions.

Simpson is quite right when he says that "the community has a reasonable expectation that government at all levels be open and accountable and local government is no exception". I don't know of anyone in local government who would object to that.

Perhaps, though, we should be asking Simpson where the openness and accountability were in his local government so-called reform process, when he consistently failed to provide a business case to support it and continually changed tack to evade challenges.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, Minister.

Allowing the Auditor General to scrutinise local governments in the same way as he is able to do for state agencies is probably a sensible way to go. As the author of the CCC report observed in his recommendation, this is consistent with the recommendation of the (Parliamentary) Public Accounts Committee in 2006 and one is forced to ask why successive governments and ministers have failed to act on this recommendation.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, Minister.

However, recent experience with State Government agencies shows that this is in no way a panacea.

Perhaps we should also be asking Simpson's Ministerial colleague, the Minister for Health, where the openness and accountability were in the recent Healthway scandal.

And the Minister for Health also needs to tell us where the openness and accountability were in respect of Health Department procurement that drew a similar adverse finding from the Crime and Corruption Commission.



















The CCC's second recommendation could be taken to be a not-very-veiled criticism of the Local Government Department and, by inference, this Minister and previous ministers. The recommendation reads: "that the Department of Local Government and Communities actively oversights risk management reviews prepared by local governments pursuant to the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 to ensure that they include appropriate assessment of misconduct risks arising from procurement, and mechanisms for reducing those risks". 

This clearly raises the question of why the Department hasn't been doing this and whether the Minister should have made sure that it did do so. 

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, Minister.

The Blame Game Begins

I suppose we should not be surprised that Local Government Minister (for now) Tony Simpson seeks to blame Councils for the failure of his ill-thought-out, poorly-explained and never-justified council amalgamation fiasco, but he is way off the mark when he argues that he didn't ask councils to spend money on the process. 

When he does become specific, he only mentions money spent on opposition -which wouldn't have been necessary if his proposals and process had been more reasonable and democratic.

But most of the costs councils are saying the state government should reimburse them was spent on constructive work towards amalgamations that most thought were inevitable. These costs were a direct result of Simpson's intransigence and the failure of the process was largely due to community (not just Council) opposition to his deceitful and anti-democratic actions.

Tony Simpson maintains the fiction that he didn't force councils to spend money on reform and adds that 'they didn't consult'. Talk about pot calling kettle black.

The fact is that Simpson gave Councils no option but to put in proposals largely similar to his own - and they did so under duress resulting from that threat. Yes, many could have consulted better, but Simpson's announced timeline didn't give a whole lot of time to do so. And where Councils called polls (as Vincent did) he showed no inclination to be influenced by the results.

There never was any justification for the amalgamations pushed by Barnett and Simpson. In fact, they flew in the face of evidence and experience from just about everywhere else. I recall at one stage Simpson's saying, almost proudly, that he had no business case (he still doesn't) and that the Local Government Advisory Board would "assess costs and benefits AFTER the decisions were made". How's that for back-to-front policy!

Councils who spent money in good faith on behalf of their ratepayers should not be held liable for the failure of Simpson and Barnett to explain what they were trying to achieve, what it would cost and what the benefits would be.  

Kalamunda Reporter, 24th February. Click to enlarge

Reporting the Vincent Decision

Click to enlarge

Perth Voice deadline meant it missed the story but almost reported it as a foregone conclusion. I look forward to reading this week's edition.

Guardian Express picked up on my description as 'second most momentous day' for Vincent community.

Click to enlarge

A Definite 'F for Fail' in Communication

All through the local government so-called reform fiasco there have been calls for better communication.

Communication of what the process was intended to achieve - other than the obvious and simplistic reduction of the number of local councils in Perth.

Communication of the business case (costs and benefits) of the so-called-reform.

Communication of the state of play and frequent changes of direction in the process - for which the so-called 'Local Government Updates' were often worse than useless.

Communication of what the 'white-flag-flying' really means and when the Governor's Orders will be rescinded. Indeed, many people are still sufficiently suspicious of the Premier and the Minister to question whether they really intend to rescind those orders or are simply prevaricating to find a way to avoid doing so.

And now we read that neither the Premier nor the Minister had the decency to communicate their backdown to local governments directly affected.

Shame, Col, Shame.

Shame, Homer, Shame.

Examiner Newspapers, 19th February 2015. Click to enlarge

Subi, Too

Vincent Did Not Do It Alone.

Notes I used for addressing Vincent Council at its Special Meeting on 19th February 2015. See http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/vincent-council-unanimously-pulls-pin.html for text of resolution.

Important for everyone that the contribution of many from across the metropolitan area be recognised.

Vincent Council Unanimously Pulls The Pin

Here is the text of the important resolution passed unanimously (all elected members present) at the Special Meeting of Vincent Council held at 6pm, Thursday 19th February 2015. 

Text in red was amendment added at my request and also adopted unanimously.

That Council:

1.  NOTES the significant shift in the Local Government Reform process in the past month, with particular regards to:

1.1     The three council amalgamations that were strongly rejected by referendums where the opportunity to vote for residents was permitted;

1.2     The Western Australian Local Government Association withdrew its support for the reform process after being long term supporters; and

1.3     The Western Australian Government announced any council merger would be voluntary;

2.  RECOGNISES and thanks the incredible efforts and participation of:

2.1     The local Vincent ratepayers, who volunteered their own time to organize the campaign to stop the splitting of Vincent and as a result of their work, gave immense political power and credibility to our position; and

2.2     The individuals and community groups across the Perth Metropolitan Area who kept local government reform in the public eye and ensured the success of the polls in South Perth, Kwinana and East Fremantle on 7th February 2015.

3.  CONFIRMS that the City of Vincent wants to remain as a stand-alone Council, on the basis of:

3.1     Strong local community support for the City of Vincent to remain as a separate entity, with particular reference to the results of the 2013 plebiscite which demonstrated the community’s first preference for the City to stay as is;

3.2    Irreconcilable differences between the City of Perth and City of Vincent regarding a new city authority under the proposed City of Perth Act, in particular the City of Perth’s support for vote weighting and a no ward structure;

3.3     Recognition the City of Perth Act would not contain a provision for a referendum of City of Vincent ratepayers to have the final say on the new governance model and structure of a new city authority; and

3.4     Recognition that small local government can be genuinely effective and innovative as leaders and facilitators of positive change in the community;

4.  AUTHORISES the Mayor and/or Chief Executive Officer to write to the Minister for Local Government to formally advise of the City of Vincent’s position;

5. RE-AFFIRMS a strong commitment to reform of the local government sector, including the need for higher standards of governance, accountability, transparency, training and innovation; and

6.  RE-AFFIRMS a strong agenda and focus on improving and reforming the City of Vincent, which began with the appointment of a new CEO to drive this process.

Lively in Parliament

I have been very critical of Tony Simpson throughout the local government so-called reform debacle, but for him, alone, to lose his job, as Opposition Leader Mark McGowan appears to suggest would miss the main target.

The fact is that this whole shambles came about because Colin Barnett said one thing before the March 2013 election (you remember the famous "no forced amalgamations" statement and his forcing Simpson to retract a statement saying the party favoured forced amalgamations) and acted contrary to those statements within months of retaining government.

It is Colin Barnett who has driven the fiasco.

It is Colin Barnett who should resign his position as Premier.

Simpson certainly hasn't covered himself in glory, but his primary failing was one of not standing up to Barnett's bullying.

It all comes back to Barnett, as Paul Murray so eloquently set out in his Opinion piece in the morning's West Australian. To single out Simpson, while in some ways satisfying, would let the principal culprit get off scot-free.

Much Clearer and Less Equivocal Statement from Simpson's Office

Hold on to this email from Simpson's Office. It is a much clearer statement than the official media release. 

Click to enlarge

Where the email says:

The Premier has advised that boundary adjustments for 15 metropolitan councils would only go ahead if affected councils provided a council resolution in support of it. 

If one or more parties involved in the boundary adjustment want to withdraw, then Minister Simpson will request the Governor revoke the order.

the official media release (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/seeing-is-believing-for-those-who-want.html) simply said:

"Governor’s orders will be revoked for mergers that aren’t supported by the councils".

The official media release could be interpreted as meaning that Governor's Orders would be revoked only where both councils didn't support merger.

Simpson's office's statement clarifies how councils make their position clear (council resolution) and states that revocation will occur even when only one of the parties wants to withdraw.

On the basis of the email from Simpson's office, all Governor's Orders can surely now be revoked (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/stop-prevaricating-minister.html)

Seeing Is Believing: For Those Who Want To See It In The Premier's Own Words

City of Canning Set To Join The Party

Motion before the Commissioners of the City of Canning at their meeting tonight. Hard to think that this would get on the agenda (especially as a late item) if they were not going to support it.

UPDATE 18th February 10.40am (courtesy of Bill Prince, Co-ordinator, Canning Community Alliance). The City of Canning Commissioners passed this resolution at their meeting last night.

Vincent Safe

"The Premier and Minister have now confirmed today that no forced mergers will occur– and accordingly as Mayor I will call a council meeting to propose that Vincent remain a stand-alone Council, reflecting the aspirations of our community."

348 Long Days Ago

On 6th March, 2014, I walked across Hyde Park, down William Street and up through the Perth Cultural Centre to have my first meeting with John Hammond to discuss the possibility of legal action being taken against the State Government over what, even then, was shaping to be a chaotic and potentially illegal process.

I was armed simply with four A4 pages of briefing notes, the essence of which was to raise three key issues:

a)      The lack of detail in the Minister’s proposals, specifically with regard to the effects of the proposed changes, which does not meet the requirements of Schedule 2.1, paragraph 2, sub-paragraph (2) (a), of the Local Government Act 1995; and

b)      The specification of the proposed changes in ways specifically designed to avoid the poll provisions of Schedule 2.1, paragraph 8, of the Local Government Act 1995 (commonly known as the Dadour Amendment);

c)      Proposals from local governments would not have been forthcoming were it not for the State Government’s threat of forced amalgamations on its own terms, as ultimately reflected in its 12 proposals to the LGAB. All other (non-State government) proposals should be regarded as null and void.

When I first said that the Emperor had no clothes, I was ridiculed in some quarters, including by those who said that it didn't matter whether he had clothes or not, he was going to force his changes through one way or another.

It is now history that the legal action did take place, with the support of a number of local governments, and failed in the Supreme Court - although that ruling is currently under appeal by the City of Subiaco.

More important, though, than whether the legal action succeeded or failed was that it demonstrated that it was possible to stand up to Barnett's bullying. In standing up to Barnett, communities forced him to duck and dive to find ways of circumventing what become very vocal objections - from the Western Suburbs to the Hills - and every time he changed tack one more brick fell out of his wall.

The keystone was removed on Saturday February 7th, when three polls said a resounding (and binding) 'NO' to amalgamations.

Since then, the collapse has been rapid and complete.

All that is left (barely) standing is a much-reduced City of Perth Act. Barnett might get that through the Parliament, but there are arguments still to be had about the effect on the City of Nedlands of removing the private part of the medical precinct (which does pay rates) and the potential effect on all of us by placing Kings Park within the City of Perth and thus exposing it to development pressures.

But if, 348 days ago, I had been offered this as an outcome, I would have grabbed it with both hands.

It is an historic achievement, the outcome of genuine outrage across the community, to which many, many people have contributed.

It is potentially a game-changer in public policy. It goes beyond the power of electronic petitions, which has been growing over the past few years, to demonstrate the power of 'non-organisation' through social media.

There was no overall 'strategy'. There was no central organisation. At times there was no visible coherence. But there was a single over-riding issue that kept them all pulling in the same direction - that communities should have a real say in how they are governed.

But the biggest factor of all, to my mind, in getting sufficient people to vote to meet the 50% threshold for a binding poll was the sheer cynicism of Gazetting Governor's Orders on Christmas Eve - hoping that it would go unnoticed in all the Christmas activities. That made people angry.

348 long days - but worth every last second.

Spot On, Kate

Kate Emery is spot on when she says "Today's announcement will be welcomed by most Perth councils". She should add, though, that it will be welcomed by most in the community. At last an end to the horror of the government's so-called reform process.

Premier's Announcement Looks Good - but no reimbursement of costs

I'll still wait for the full report before celebrating, though

Parliament Today

The Legislative Council today should seem some 'interesting' debates, not only because of the Premier's mooted announcement around midday but also because there are five matters relating to local government on the Notice Paper.

I hope that some of these matters might essentially be overtaken by favourable events today, but it is worth noting that the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill is not related to the vexed issue of the Government's so-called reform process.

Government Business

Private Members Business

Local Newspapers' Mixed Coverage of 'Reform' Collapse

Coverage in local newspapers across the affected parts of the metropolitan area was very mixed.

The Southern Gazette made it front page news that South Perth had been saved from oblivion and others made the issue in various forms front page. But the Fremantle Gazette and the Melville Times barely mentioned the results of the polls, one of which directly affected their distribution areas of Fremantle and East Fremantle and the City of Melville, but did report comments to the effect that the process was a shamble.

Mind you, the Fremantle Herald adopted much the same approach, focussing on suggestions that the Premier's pain could be short-lived if he walked away from his so-called reform.

The Subiaco Post, as it has consistently done throughout the whole process, gave lots of space to its own reports and to letters from readers. One of those letters was an open letter to Bill Marmion, MLA for Nedlands (includes Subiaco), asking why he hadn't defended Subiaco elector's right to a poll.

Comment News and Midland-Kalamunda reporter celebrated the flow-on for Kalamunda and Serpentine-Jarrahdale from the polls through the likely rescinding of the Governor's Orders that were gazetted on Christmas Eve.

Across the board, there was reporting of Councils preparing to seek reimbursement of costs from the state government.

The only report of continuing support for amalgamations came from the City of Bayswater, reported in the Eastern Reporter.

Illustrative but incomplete (and not necessarily representative) examples of coverage below.

Southern Gazette. Click to enlarge

Southern Gazette. Click to enlarge

Southern Gazette. Click to enlarge

Southern Gazette. Click to enlarge

Kalamunda reporter. Click to enlarge

Kwinana Courier. Click to enlarge

Southern Gazette. Click to enlarge

Subiaco Post. Click to enlarge

Subiaco Post. Click to enlarge

Subiaco Post. Click to enlar

Subiaco Post. Click to enlarge

Subiaco Post. Click to enlarge

More Mixed Messages

As if the shambles in Canberra, with Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey giving different messages about the budget and the state of the economy, wasn't enough, we now seem to have three different messages about the fate of local government so-called reform in Perth.

The Treasurer, Mike Nahan, says the Government will formally abandon its council merger process. "Governor's Orders will be rescinded, meaning that there will be no change to local government boundaries", he is quoted as saying.

Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, is still interested in pursuing voluntary amalgamations, and even goes as far as to say "The Premier said there's no forced amalgamations" (but we've heard that before, haven't we!) - but has offered no timeline for rescinding Governor's Orders (and hence no real commitment to doing so).

The Premier 'hinted that councils would learn the fate of the merger process tomorrow' - and added that "The state is not going to give up on local government reform, but we'll give more details tomorrow".

Well, it's sincerely to be hoped that all these gentlemen (and I use the term loosely) get their act together and all sing from the same hymnsheet tomorrow - and that the hymn is the one that the community wants to hear. Nothing less than a commitment to rescinding the Governor's Orders will suffice, guys - let's put all this to bed and move on.

Stop Prevaricating, Minister

Click to enlarge

Get real, Homer.

Col has said he's flying the white flag.

WALGA has described the process as "flawed beyond repair".

Three of the Councils affected by Governor's Orders have withdrawn. Two more will certainly do so. That's five of the Orders gone. (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/kalamunda-and-cockburn-formally-opt-out.html)

The Canning community wants no part of it.

That's six out of eight gone.

The remaining two (Stirling and Melville) are essentially residuals to tidy up what's left.

As Max Hipkins has said, it's time to remove the uncertainty that has plagued local government in Perth since this process began.

Councils don't need more time to think about whether they want amalgamation on your terms. If they do want amalgamation, it has to be on entirely separate terms - and that can only happen after the Governor's Orders have been rescinded.

Brilliant - Fifty Shades of Barnett Reversed

Sunday Times, 15th February 2015

Barnett's Lies - Or perhaps He Is Just Thick

In the item in WA Today (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/cols-convenient-memory.html), Colin Barnett is quoted as saying "The case for amalgamations & mergers of local councils is overwhelming".

He has never produced a skerrick of evidence to support this repeated claim. Minister, Tony Simpson, even went as far as to state (almost proudly) that he didn't have a business case for the grand plan for local government restructuring - and wouldn't try to develop one until 'after the decision was made'.

On the other hand, Professor Brian Dollery, Director of the Centre for Local Government at the University of New England has found little or no evidence of 'bigger' being 'better' or 'more efficient' - in Australia or in other places where amalgamations have happened.

One only has to look at Perth to see that, if anything, larger councils impose higher charges (rates and rubbish charges) than do smaller ones, although there is greater variation between smaller ones - http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/still-doesnt-add-up.html

So how is it that no one in the media seems to challenge Barnett when he tells these porkies?

Get Your Emails Working - Lobbying Still Needed

Barnett is still trying to weasel out of rescinding Governor's Orders. There is a concerted campaign to deluge Simpson with emails and letters in favour of forced 'boundary changes'/amalgamations.

Email Simpson (Minister.Simpson@dpc.wa.gov.au) telling him you don't want forced 'boundary changes'. Weight of numbers needed to ensure rescission of Governor's Orders.

Kalamunda and Cockburn Formally Opt Out.

Click to enlarge

So now three of the Eight Governor's Orders (Swan/Mundaring; Bayswater/Bassendean; Belmont/Kalamunda) now have one party saying it wants no part of it.

Two of the Governor's Orders (Stirling and Melville) are purely consequences of those affecting Canning/Gosnells, Subiaco/Cambridge and Bayswater/Bassendean.

Subiaco and Serpentine-Jarrahdale will almost certainly join the opting out.

The Canning community certainly wants to opt out, although the Commissioners' position is unclear.

That leaves a big fat zero, Col.

UPDATE 8pm. Serpentine-Jarrahdale Council has passed a similar resolution.

Col's Convenient Memory

Apart from the illogical rejection of claims for compensation for costs incurred as a direct result of his and the Government's actions, Col has yet again revealed his astoundingly selective memory.

He is reported as saying: "There is no doubt the way the Local Government Act is structured, it is almost impossible to get a sensible structure" [for local government].

Strange, then, that he was one of the MPs who voted for the Local Government Act, in its current form, back in 1995. 

Here We Go Again - Yet Again

Hope both the Tasmanian councils and the Tasmanian Government learn from the WA experience and avoid all the waste, stress and cost of trying to force amalgamations.

Hope ALP Is Not Doing A Barnett Backflip on City of Perth Act

It is sincerely to be hoped that the Labor Opposition is only 'poised to support' the greatly reduced City of Perth Act proposed by the Cities of Perth and Vincent after they were unable to overcome fundamental difference in the original Barnett proposal.

If this is not the case, the ALP will surely have spent, within days, much of the political capital it earned from its support of abandoning the local government so-called reform process and the rescinding of Governor's Orders that would establish new local governments from 1st July 2015.

UPDATE 12 midday: I have been assured by David Templeman, Opposition spokesman on local government, that "Any consideration of a new City of Perth proposal would be on the proviso that Vincent continues as the Town of Vincent".

At Least One Council Against Every Forced 'Boundary Change'

That's the key point in this piece from Kate Emery.

"Every boundary change or amalgamation the Government proposed is opposed by at least one party, councils told The West Australian yesterday."

But I do wish the media would stop equating boundary change with reform. Boundary change by itself does nothing to 'reform' (dictionary definition: make changes in [something, especially an institution or practice] in order to improve it - my emphasis) local government. In the short-medium term it has precisely the opposite effect as it distracts from the functions of local government, placing emphasis on its form alone.

The West Weighs In - But Still Doesn't Get The Lack Of Evidence

The otherwise  good editorial in today's West Australian is spoilt by it's tacit refusal to acknowledge that the problem wasn't so much Barnett's failure to take people along with him but that there was never any case for what he was trying to achieve. All the evidence from WA (eg Geraldton), interstate (eg Queensland and Victoria) and overseas (eg Canada) demonstrates that, contrary to the assertions of Barnett, Simpson and The West Australian, larger councils are not more efficient, do not have lower costs and do levy higher charges on ratepayers.

Alston Nails It Again

Not just the arrogance of Barnett who is outraged at the thought of having get approval from anyone for anything, but also the ramshackle nature of the shed - uncannily like his grand plan for local government - falling down and falling apart.

In Victory, Revenge. In Defeat, Malice

West Australian 11th February 2015. Click to enlarge.

This Hackerism neatly sums up Barnett's response to Councils seeking reimbursement of costs incurred in as part of his local government so-called reform.

Not My Fault, Says Col

Couldn't be Col's fault, could it? Couldn't be that his arrogant, devious and ideological, anti-democratic approach contributed to his downfall.

There's none so blind, Col, as he who will not see.

Sums you up.

West Australian 11th February 2015. Click to enlarge.

West Australian 11th February 2015. Click to enlarge.

Tidal Wave Sweeping All Before It.

Perth Now and Channel 9 pick up the story.

The key words here are: "amalgamations and boundary changes wold now only take place in areas where reform is supported by Councils".

As previously noted on this blog (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/celebrating-dam-busters.html):

- South Perth/Victoria Park, East Fremantle/Fremantle and Kwinana/Cockburn amalgamations are dead in the water as a result of the polls.

- Bassendean and Mundaring Councils have unanimously withdrawn from the shambles of a process. 

- Kalamunda will shortly do so, as will Cockburn. 

I would be very surprised if Serpentine-Jarrahdale and Subiaco didn't do the same.

I understand that the Commissioners of the City of Canning have acceded to the resolution of electors passed on 13th January and written to the Minister asking that Governor's Orders be rescinded.

Bayswater (and possibly Cambridge) appear to be alone, at this stage, in wanting the amalgamations to go ahead, but they can't do so if Bassendean and Serpentine-Jarrahdale say no.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/confusion-over-wa-council-reform-plans-after-state-government-scraps-local-government-merger-plans/story-fnhocxo3-1227216294093