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/

The Tsunami Is Building

If Colin Barnett thinks that his City of Perth Bill will get an easy ride because it doesn't obviously affect more than a few, he is mistaken. These are but the early shots in the battle - it's not only Subiaco and Nedlands but Kings Park, Vincent and Victoria Park. If you you doubt that, keep watching this space.

Love the re-use of the Subi banner from previous fiasco. This and Tony Noakes' letter ("Nobody has told us what the City of Perth Bill is for, what it is supposed to achieve…") demonstrates that Barnett has learnt nothing.

Porkies In Parliament?

Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, stated in the Legislative Assembly on 21st May (in response to a Dorothy Dix question that gave him the opportunity to say more than time allowed in his second reading speech) that "the government is working with the City of Subiaco on transitional arrangements for affected ratepayers in the area known as the Crawley finger" (http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Hansard/hansard.nsf/0/513ef68fcc01b2ad48257e500016e8ca/$FILE/A39+S1+20150521+p4191c-4192a.pdf).

Subiaco Mayor, Heather Henderson strongly denies this, saying: "the City hasn't had any interaction with anyone from the government since … the beginning of March".

I rely, here, not only on the report in the Post (above), although I would confidently do that. I have discussed this Mayor Henderson and have no doubt that what she says is true.

Given that Simpson's statement was in response to a clearly-planted question (Tony Krsticevic is the Government Whip in the Assembly) and, therefore, he would have had a prepared answer, it is difficult, if not impossible, to avoid drawing the conclusion that Simpson knowingly mislead the Parliament.