This is the personal blog of Ian Ker, who was Councillor for the South Ward of the Town of Vincent from 1995 to 2009. I have been a resident of this area since 1985. This blog was originally conceived as a way of letting residents of Vincent know what I have been doing and sharing thoughts on important issues. I can now use it to sound off about things that concern me.

If you want to contact me, my e-mail is still ian_ker@hotmail.com or post a comment on this blog.

To post a comment on this blog, select the individual post on which you wish to comment, by clicking on the title in the post or in the list to the left of the blog, and scroll down to the 'Post a Comment' box at the foot.

Search This Blog

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Mary Street Trees: My Requests To Vincent Council

Tuesday 19th September.

I took the opportunity to address Vincent Council about what happened to the Mary Street trees and the need to ensure there is no recurrence either there or in respect of any other Trees of Significance in Vincent.

I'll be keeping an eye on this issue, hoping that Vincent Council will follow up.

A few weeks ago, City of Vincent contractor, Beaver Tree Services, severely cut back five of the Hills Weeping Fig trees at the William Street end of Mary Street

I have been informed that the work carried out went far beyond what was approved on the basis of “normal tree maintenance”.

This has totally changed the aesthetics of this highly-valued treescape, probably permanently. Instead of welcoming shade when turning into Mary Street in summer, people will still feel the full force of the sun.

I understand that the works were carried out at the request of the adjoining property owner on the basis that: the trees were encroaching over the property and roof of their buildings and continuously depositing leaf debris in their gutters.

This, in itself, sets a dangerous precedent for Mary Street, as almost every property owner could probably make a similar claim.

Indeed, I recall that when I was on Council we had a similar type of problem with root invasion from the Mary Street trees that could have resulted in compromising the integrity of the streetscape. This was resolved by Council carefully considering a range of options for the whole street, rather than simply responding to the initial request in isolation.

The CEO has assured me that the City’s staff followed Council policies on Street Trees and Trees of Significance. I am not doubting this was so, but what happened to the Mary Street trees demonstrates an urgent need for improvement of those policies, including:

1.    More effective requirement to ensure that contractors do not start work on trees of significance without supervision by Vincent staff.

2.    Penalties for non-compliance with the Street Trees and Trees of Significance policies.

3.    Development of specific management plans for each of the four listed street treescapes: Mabel Street, Mary Street, Money Street and Monger Street.

4.    Requiring that external requests for works on any Trees of Significance be notified to Council, with an officer report on actions to be taken, so that elected members are
(a) informed; and
(b) have the opportunity to require further consideration, including community consultation, before the works are carried out.

In addition, I request that:

1.    The Mary Street treescape be nominated for inclusion on the WA State Heritage Register. There are currently 20 trees or groups of trees on the register and the heritage values of the Mary Street trees are enhanced by the proximity of the Sacred Heart group of buildings that are also on the State Heritage Register.

2.    Where substantial limbs are removed from trees, alternatives to re-use the timber, rather than simply chipping the ‘prunings’, be investigated.

3.    Council and the community be advised of what action is taken against the contractor.

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Back To The Past With Michael Sutherland

Perth City Council candidate (and rejected former Mt Lawley MLA) Michael Sutherland wants to take the City of Perth back to the 1990s, when it paraded the slogan "Your car is as welcome as you are".


I truly thought we had got past this sort of idiocy long ago, with inner cities focussing on walking, cycling and public transport, instead of creating yet more traffic congestion by encouraging people to drive to the central city.

Sure, no one likes to pay for parking - witness the number of Perth city commuters who park on my street every day and walk or get a cheap (2-section fare) bus into the city.

But what we have to realise is that car use is not costless (to the driver (self-evident), to other drivers or to the community) and nor is parking.

In peak periods in Perth, every additional driver on the roads imposes congestion costs on other drivers that are even greater than that driver's cost of using the car. On top of that, there are the costs of air pollution, climate change and social impacts - such as community severance by heavy traffic, with which inner urban residents like me are are only too familiar.

Nor is car parking costless, especially in central cities where land costs are very high. Where parking is free to the user (such as at suburban shopping centres), the cost is paid for by businesses (through council rates and/or lease rentals) and ultimately is factored into the prices paid by consumers. The critical difference, where car parkers don't pay directly, is that everyone pays, whether they get there by car and use the parking provided or not.

Public transport to Perth city has never been better - and current proposals for its development will make it even more so - so why, oh why, would we want to turn back the clock 20 years or more and turn the city into a traffic sewer once again.

Monday, September 11, 2017

Reflections For 'Christians' Opposed to Same-Sex Marriage

From the UK, but so so relevant to the Australian alt-right right now. Couldn't have put it better myself.

NOT Michael Sutherland for Perth

I am reminded by former Mt Lawley MLA, Michael Sutherland, standing for City of Perth Council that he once said to my daughter about me (when I was (successfully) campaigning against Barnett's local government so-called reform), that it would be better if I went away and played bowls. 

I might say the same about him, but that would be an insult to all those (young as well as old) who enjoy playing bowls - which obviously didn't bother Sutherland when he was suggesting that I "go away" and do so.

On the subject of insults (this time to electors of the City of Perth), what about truth in political advertising? 

Truth in Advertising: An Independent Voice?

Sutherland spruiks himself as "an independent voice", but he was a Liberal MLA before the last WA election and just a couple of months ago was seeking to be replacement Liberal senator for Chris Back who retired for family reasons. The fact that he invited Peta Credlin, the former chief of staff for ousted Liberal leader Tony Abbot, to Perth for a fundraiser at his Mt Lawley branch (http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/former-wa-liberal-doesnt-believe-peta-credlin-invite-will-damage-his-senate-bid-20170705-gx59ua.html) should tell us something about where he sits in the Liberal Party spectrum.


Unlike his inner city counterpart, Eleni Evangel (MLA for Perth, 2013-2017), Sutherland did not distance himself from the Liberal-One Nation preference deal. Whereas Ms Evangel said: "I do not support One Nation or their policies" and she had “no time whatsoever for intolerance or discrimination of any form". All Michael Sutherland is reported as saying was that he "did not believe the deal alienated voters". [http://www.communitynews.com.au/guardian-express/news/mt-lawley-and-perth-liberal-members-have-differing-views-on-preference-deal-with-one-nation]

Truth in Advertising: Will The Real Michael Sutherland Show Himself?

I don't normally comment on people's appearance (being no picture of sartorial elegance, myself), but, while on the subject of lack of truth in political advertising, compare the picture Sutherland is using for his facebook page (which appears to be the one used for lord knows how long while he was an MLA) with the reality revealed in his diatribe about homeless (mainly aboriginal) people and Wellington Square.



Friday, September 8, 2017

Contractor's 'Error' - But Vincent Policy and Practice Must Be Better

Thanks to the Perth Voice for its coverage of the Mary Street tree mutilation (below) and to Mayor Emma Cole and Vincent CEO, Len Kosova, for their detailed responses to me on matters I raised in emails with them.

However, I am less sanguine than Mr Kosova about the adequacy of Vincent's policies to prevent recurrence, especially as they appear to give property owners the right to have trees pruned up to the property boundary without having to provide any reasons for doing so - I understand that the Mary Street pruning was approved on the basis that the trees overhung one property and deposited leaves in the gutters.

Incidentally, if the 'problem' was essentially one of leaves in the gutters, surely it would be more cost-effective to install good leaf-guard in the gutters.

Whilst pruning to the property boundary might not be a problem in typical streetscapes, with smaller and spaced-out trees, exceptional treescapes, like Mary Street require greater protection.


I sincerely hope the City assesses its option with regard to the contractor, including the potential for seeking damages and removing this contractor from the City's preferred contractor list, but nothing can remediate the mutilation. 

It is essential that Council take steps to minimise the potential for recurrence. With this in mind, I shall be requesting Council to:
a) Put an immediate ban on any works on the Mary Street trees, unless clearly and demonstrably required for safety purposes, until such time as the issues leading to the recent mutilation have been adequately addressed.
b) Develop a specific management plan for the Mary Street trees, recognising the importance of maintaining the appearance of the streetscape as well as the health of individual trees. 
c) Nominate the Mary Street treescape for inclusion on the State Heritage Register - there are already 20 trees or groups of trees on the Register. 

The current Street Trees policy (2.1.2) does not adequately address the Mary Street situation - for example, it appears to grant an unqualified right to property line pruning (Clause 4), which is not appropriate where such pruning might adversely affect the value and amenity of the rest of the treescape.
https://perthvoiceinteractive.com/2017/09/08/what-a-fig-up



Monday, September 4, 2017

Mary Street Trees: Judge for yourself what has been lost

I've been searching for a 'before' picture to compare with mine of the devastated Mary Street trees - not easy, as most people take pics under the cooling canopy of the trees.

However, Google Maps (street view) to the rescue, albeit with some camera distortion, with a picture taken in March this year.

So, just ignore the Water Corporation's contractor's workers (who were, for once, on-site and actually working) and judge for yourself what has been lost - what are now the 'twin-peaks' just in from the left about 1/6 were previously 1/3 of the way in from the left.

To put it in simple terms, 15% of the canopy width has been lost. There has also been substantial loss of material from the lower levels of the trees.

The pictures also seem to indicate that the pruning the southern side of Mary Street at the William Street end has been more severe than was apparent from the visible cut marks.
Source: Google Maps, Street View.


More on Mary Street Trees

Lunchtime on Monday 4th September - and no response (not even an acknowledgment) from elected members of Council (with the honourable exception of Cr Matt Buckels and, today, Cr Dan Loden (1pm) and Cr Jonathan Hallett (3.30pm)) nor the City's Administration.

Since the previous post (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2017/09/mary-street-trees-butchered.html) a bit more research has revealed that the city of Vincent reviewed its Significant Tree Inventory in 2013. It's consultant's review was unanimously adopted by Council on 5th November 2013.

On Mary Street, the consultant's recommendation was: "Monitor the sunscald injury for the trees on the south side and the production of reparative tissue to close the wounds. Consideration should be given to minor crown lifting to improve clearance for high vehicles."

No mention here of any problems with the trees that would merit even consideration of drastic reduction of any of the trees such as is now all too painfully obvious at the William Street end of Mary Street. Note the 'before' picture in the consultant's report (below) and the current, post-vandalism view.

NOTE: This post was amended 4pm Monday 4th September to acknowledge the response of Cr Dan Loden and Cr Jonathan Hallett.

Saturday, September 2, 2017

Mary Street Trees Butchered

Mary Street is one of Vincent's iconic streets, with heritage buildings and heritage trees that give it a unique ambience.

Why, then, have five of the trees on the northern side, at the William Street end, been butchered, totally changing the look of the street - not to mention removing welcoming shade in summer? 

It is noticeable that these five trees are alongside just one property. If this tree vandalism has been undertaken at the behest of the owners of that property, this sets a very disturbing precedent.


In addition, this appears to be contrary to the spirit, and probably the letter, of the 2014 Vincent Greening Plan, especially that part dealing with enhancement and management of tree canopy. The Greening Plan shows Mary Street as being comparable to parks and reserves in its contribution to vegetation cover. 
Given the importance and value of Mary Street, and the magnitude of the intervention, it is strange that I can find no mention in Council Minutes of any works being required nor the reasons why they might be. 

To make matters worse, there is no evidence of the trees or the substantial limbs removed being diseased in any way. 



I am, of course, assuming that the works were actually carried out by or for the City of Vincent. If I am wrong, I apologise to Council and staff - but then the proverbial book should be thrown at whoever WAS responsible for this vandalism.

Friday, July 28, 2017

NSW: In Retreat, Confusion and Cost - and Property Developers Disown Their Own Baby

Yesterday, the good news (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2017/07/people-power-does-it-again.html).

Today, the fallout, in the form of confusion and costs.

The NSW Premier cites 'uncertainty' as the reason for backing down, but any uncertainty is entirely the making of the NSW Liberal government in trying to force council amalgamations for purely ideological reasons.

Now the about face, which could have been avoided by not embarking on this ideological farce in the first place, leaves many councils uncertain about their future. This includes councils that have, often unwillingly, embarked on the merger process. It will be particularly messy where one council opposed the merger or where mergers involved splitting council areas (see last para in the item below).

There is also the issue of cost. All affected councils will have had to spend a lot of rate[ayers' money on this aborted process - just as in Queensland and WA. Not unnaturally, these councils will want to recoup those costs from the state government - although in shifting the burden from ratepayers to taxpayers (and adding legal costs for seeking recoup through the courts), it is not clear that anyone wins - except the lawyers, of course.

And we should not be surprised that the property development industry, a prime mover in the 'bigger is better' ideology, is now backing away and blaming the NSW government for getting its process wrong!
http://www.governmentnews.com.au/2017/07/councils-first-clarity-now-confusion

Thursday, July 27, 2017

People Power Does It Again.

Queensland communities forced the demerger of several forcibly-amalgamated councils - a partial, but significant, victory.

WA communities forced Colin Barnett to back down completely on forced local government amalgamations.

Now NSW communities have achieved the same, although there is a problem with councils that have already amalgamated against the will of one or more of the councils and communities concerned.

Congratulations to all those who have worked so hard in NSW.

Another one in the eye for those who said we were wasting our time.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-27/council-amalgamations-scrapped-in-nsw-after-government-backflip/8748164

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

All-Day Parking To Be Squeezed Into Two Blocks in Vincent

Car parking has long been a thorny issue in inner-urban Vincent. In addition to the activity generated by the City's town centres, some streets have effectively become car parks for City of Perth commuters who, rather than pay up to $20 a day for parking in the City, park for nothing and pay less than $2 each way for a 2-section bus ride.

Vincent has progressively introduced time restrictions, coupled with resident/visitor parking permits to manage this, as well as some paid parking in Mt Lawley/Highgate and Leederville town centres.

The latest expansion of time-restricted parking will take effect from 1 July 2017 and covers the area around the North Perth town centre, between Charles and Norfolk Streets.


This, in itself, is a logical extension of Council's parking policy in response to increasing pressures on its town centres - and recent improvements to bus services through North Perth (even if it doesn't look like the MAX light rail will be resurrected any time soon!). On Vincent Street it will also improve parking availability during the week for users of Hyde Park, including the water playground, without having to shepherd children across busy Vincent Street.

However, it has the unfortunate consequence that the area between Norfolk Street and William Street, from Vincent Street northwards, will be the only area in reasonable proximity to the Perth CBD across the whole of Vincent that does not have time-restricted parking. Some of these streets, notably Vincent Street and Chelmsford Road, are already parked out soon after 8am on weekdays and the increased restrictions elsewhere will force even more all-day parking into this area.


From a community perspective, one of the most disquieting aspects is the lack of consultation with (or even information to) residents of the area between Norfolk and William Streets. The proverbial Blind Freddy could see that this area is going to bear the brunt

I am a resident of Vincent Street and only found out about the changes (apparently first mooted back in November 2016) when I contacted City of Vincent about another parking matter on Vincent Street.

Vincent Council has severely let down the residents of the area between Norfolk and William Streets and should urgently implement similar time restrictions for this area.

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

Controversial Floodplain Development Proposed by City of South Perth

The City of South Perth is proposing a substantial ($7 million) development in Sir James Mitchell Park on the South Perth Foreshore https://southperth.wa.gov.au/our-future/projects-and-places/westralian-centre. According to local residents, this proposal is being pushed along with unnecessary haste.

A Special Electors’ Meeting on Thursday 8 June at 6 pm at South Perth Community Hall (cnr Sandgate St and South Terrace) has been called to get further information and allow electors to express their views.

Additionally, you can 'Have Your Say' via the City of South Perth website https://yoursay.southperth.wa.gov.au/the-westralian-centre – BUT NOTE this questionnaire closes Friday 2 June 2017.

Unfortunately, the artist's impression (below) gives the impression that the landward side of the park rises up towards Mill Point Road. Whilst this is true for the immediate corner shown, the area immediately behind the proposed development is virtually flat, so anything above ground level (even if disguised with a turf roof) will be a visual barrier to the river. 

Any community consultation (and to-date there appears to have been little, if any, active consultation) must be based on accurate drawings and pictures from ground (ie observer) level not the elevated viewpoint currently shown, from which no-one will ever see it, including from Mill Point Road and from the River as well as both east and west along the foreshore.

The bottom picture, below, gives the impression that there would still be an uninterrupted view of the Swan River, but the 7-metre height of the building and the flatness of the surrounding foreshore mean that this will not be so.




There are important issues surrounding any built form on the Swan River foreshore, especially when it involves a commercial element and removes some 2,200m2 of public open space - even if the development would (presumably) be under the control of the Council. We should not forget that Sir James Mitchell Park is Crown Land that was created as a reserve by the Minister for Lands for the purpose of Recreation. Whilst it is managed by the City of South Perth, it rightly belongs to all Western Australians.

The central area of the proposed development has a large expanse of concrete or paving (ie heatsink) with absolutely no shade. Since this is north-facing, it will become intolerably hot on sunny summer days, even though the southern 'passage' might funnel some breezes (but not the Fremantle Doctor, which comes from the southwest, not the south), the heat from above (sun) and below (paving) will make this a very uninviting space.

I'm not sure, either, that masses of concrete/paving reflects aboriginal heritage/significance (as stated by the City of South Perth), which prompts the question of how much consultation there has been with aboriginal communities.

More fundamentally, one must question the wisdom of any new development on a foreshore that is barely above the level of the river, especially in view of the recent report (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-23/coastal-areas-at-risk-new-climate-study-reveals/8549934that sea level rise (and Perth Water is tidal, so will be affected) could result in the inundation of the foreshore by the end of the century.

Even with a lesser sea-level rise, low-lying foreshore areas will be subject to more frequent storm- and tide-related inundation.


Monday, March 13, 2017

Wipeout: Role of Forced Local Government Amalgamation Debacle

The count of the WA state election is not yet finalised, but it is clear that the Liberals have taken a hammering - so much so that, as Jessica Strutt has observed, hardly any (actually 3) of their lower house MPs have any experience of being in opposition. And of those, one has experience in Victoria not WA and another (Colin Barnett) is unlikely to stay very long.
There is already a lot of soul-searching among Liberals and comment (not really analysis) in the media, with common targets for blame being:
- the 'it's time' factor, coupled with Barnett's personal unpopularity
- the One-Nation preference deal
- the state's financial situation
- Roe 8/Perth Freight Link
- end of the mining boom
- Australia's highest unemployment
- failure of Barnett/Turnbull to address WA's GST return

All of these are important, but one thing has barely rated a mention and yet the decline in Liberal/Barnett fortunes can be traced back to it - that is the debacle of Barnett's local government so-called reform.

The duplicity of Barnett, having stated in the lead-up to the 2013 WA election that there would be no forced local government amalgamations and, moreover, forcing Tony Simpson into an embarrassing backdown after he stated that forced amalgamations were Liberal policy, kick-started a grass-roots protest that
- spread like wildfire across much of the metropolitan region, comparable to but more widespread than the Roe 8 protests;
- forced the Local Government Advisory Board to abandon all but one of the Minster for Local Government's proposals;
- resulted in three proposals being subject to binding polls that all resoundingly rejected forced amalgamations; and
- saw Barnett forced to backdown on all the amalgamations and, to use his words, "fly the white flag".

I attended many community meetings during that time and one common reaction was people's saying they had voted Liberal all their lives but would never vote Liberal at state level again.

And that is exactly what happened. As Antony Green has pointed out, a very large part of the precipitate fall in the Liberal primary vote went, not to protest parties such as One Nation, but directly to the ALP.

Look at the areas where the grass-roots protest movement really took hold (Kalamunda; Serpentine-Jarrahdale, Mundaring) and you will see a litany of seats previously held by the Liberals falling to Labor. From holding all of the hills seats, the Liberals now hold none.

Other areas (eg Cockburn; Kwinana) were already Labor but now look to be impregnable.

The seat of Perth (which includes most of the City of Vincent) has fallen back to Labor with a bang, no doubt mobilised by the highly-effective 'one-in, all-in' campaign initiated by then Mayor Alannah MacTiernan and strongly followed up by her successor (now member for Perth) John Carey. Barnett's intention to split the City of Vincent between Perth and Stirling and the strong community reaction against it no doubt put the seat of Perth from marginal Liberal to safe Labor.

Friday, March 3, 2017

More on coat of arms

I noticed, in passing today, that Eleni Evangel's billboard on Beaufort Street has had the state coat of arms covered over by a piece of blue plastic (which is nevertheless in danger of blowing off).

I don't know when the WA Today photograph (see my previous post http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2017/03/illegal-political-advertising-misuse-of.html) was taken (although it is presumably recent for the story to benewsworthy), but covering up the coat of arms on the Beaufort Street billboard is tacit acknowledgment that its use was, at best, inappropriate.

I questioned the legality with the Electoral Commission, which replied (very quickly - perhaps indicating that I was not the first to raise the issue):

Use of ‘common badging’ and the State Coat of Arms during the caretaker period is a matter for the Department of Premier and Cabinet under Caretaker Conventions.The Electoral Act 1907 does not address the use of such images during campaign periods. 

The Caretaker Conventions do not specifically mention election advertising, but do state:
This would appear to exclude use of the State coat of arms for any other purpose, including election advertising.

Illegal(?) Political Advertising - misuse of WA coat of arms

First, a disclaimer. Although a long-term resident of the City of Vincent (since 1985), the recent changes to electoral boundaries has shifted me from Perth into Mt Lawley. Clearly, the electoral commission has the same lack of appreciation of 'community of interest' as the Local Government Advisory Board - Mt Lawley south of Walcott Street is very different from Mt Lawley north of it.

Nevertheless, I retain a close interest in the state seat of Perth - and the main candidates clearly support me in this, as I keep getting literature from both Eleni Evangel and John Carey - as well as, correctly, from Simon Millman and Michael Sutherland, candidates for Mt Lawley.

It has previously been reported that Eleni Evangel, member/candidate for Perth, has chosen not to use the Liberal brand in her billboard advertising - although her fliers do have the Liberal brand prominent.

What I do not recall seeing mentioned, however, is that she IS using the WA Government brand/cost of arms (see pic). Is this legal?

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/second-proliberal-billboard-adorns-lisa-scaffidi-building-20170303-guq0mz.html
And while on the subject of political advertising, can we reduce visual pollution by restricting candidate-specific advertising to the candidate's own electorate. The billboards above are in the Perth electorate and Michael Sutherland should not inflict himself on all and sundry.

Friday, February 24, 2017

South Perth: Find Out What Your Candidates Stand For

I'm not a resident of South Perth (although I was when I first came to WA in 1977), but I applaud the South Perth community for taking the initiative to call a Town Hall meeting at which all seven candidates for the 11th March state election will be able to talk to and be quizzed by the community on an equal footing.

If you are a voter in the South Perth electorate, particularly if you are unsure who to vote for or want to find out how each of the candidates would proposes to represent you on issues of particular concern in South Perth, then take a little of your time to go along.


Friday, February 17, 2017

Telling NSW What We Already Knew In WA

There's an intelligent and incisive assessment by Marie Samson in 'Government News' (http://www.governmentnews.com.au/2017/02/forced-council-mergers-nsw-government-got-wrong) of why forced local government amalgamations came such a cropper in NSW - all of which sounds horribly familiar to those of who were involved in the resistance in WA.

Indeed, coming so soon after the debacles in WA and Queensland, the NSW Government's 'bull-in-a-china-shop' approach can only be seen as a wilful and ideologically-driven refusal to learn from experience or to recognise facts.

An important issue raised in the assessment is clear identification of the roles of local and state governments. The government could have spoken about giving councils more scope and more political clout at state and federal level, rather than bypassing them with new agencies like Urban Growth and the Greater Sydney Commission. In essence, the state government is doing things that local government ought to be doing.

Sounds familiar to WA people fighting the oppressive and arbitrary decision-making of the State-sponsored Development Assessment Panels.

So, to make it easy-to-understand for any government thinking about local government amalgamations, here are the six key factors identified from the NSW experience:

n  Be clear and honest about your intentions from the start
n  Back them up with sufficient evidence and share this evidence
n  Engage closely with communities around what the benefits are to them
n  Listen to and act on residents’ concerns
n  Be consistent with your reasoning and apply it evenly and fairly
n  Build independence into the process, including drawing boundaries, engaging with communities and assessing proposals

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Time for Voters' Question Time

Day after day, week after week, year after year, we see parliamentary question time (both federal and state) degenerate into a farce of dorothy-dixers, political point-scoring, obfuscation and name-calling. 

Very occasionally, but increasingly rarely, some useful information is elicited. 

Both sides of politics, whether in government or opposition, are equally to blame, so let's think about how we might actually get some value from Question Time.

Here's a 'radical' (ie democratic) thought. Instead of politicians setting the questions, why not let voters do so? 

The on-line technology to do this already exists. In the UK, e-petitions gaining 10,000 valid signatures will get a response from Government and those with 100,000 will be considered for debate in the Parliament (https://petition.parliament.uk). In the past two years, 380 e-petitions have received a government response and 48 have been debated in Parliament - sometimes with a full day of debate. 30 are currently awaiting a government response and 7 a debate in Parliament.

Only 14 petitions with the requisite 100,000 signatures have been refused debate in Parliament.

Incidentally, e-petitions seem to be totally beyond the WA Parliament (which still requires hard copy with written signatures). E-petitions are accepted by the Federal Parliament, but are referred to the appropriate Minister rather than debated  under public scrutiny.

If our Parliaments and Government find e-petitions too threatening, perhaps we could (in the words of Monty Python) make the move 'from accountancy to lion-taming via banking' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azkFz1ZbXyU)

It would be a brave PM, Premier or Minister who responded to a question from voters by slagging off the questioners or effectively refusing to answer the question.

Victory in NSW - But For Whom?

As reported in an earlier post (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2017/01/lest-we-forget-wa-parallels-in-nsw.html) drawing on reports in Government News, the Government of new NSW Premier, Gladys Berejiklian, has done an about face on some forced local government amalgamations.

Regional amalgamations will be abandoned, but the people of Sydney are not so lucky. Sydney communities whose councils have already been merged will not be given the opportunity to de-merge by plebiscite and those currently the subject of court action will depend upon the outcome of those actions.

As Keith Rhoades, President of Local Government NSW, has stated, this is clearly a political compromise that is likely to satisfy no-one (http://www.lgnsw.org.au/news/media-release/media-release-political-compromise-lost-opportunity).

However, there are some winners as well as the obvious losers. The National Party will welcome the decision as it will help them avoid further humiliations like the 2016 Orange by-election, where the Nationals lost to the Shooters and Fishers Party after having held the seat for 69 years (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-21/orange-by-election-won-by-shooters,-fishers-and-farmers-party/8043658),

The 'split-decision' (even, one might opine, schizophrenic decision) appears unlikely to help the NSW Government in Sydney electorates, where there is strong opposition to forced amalgamations, but there is one group that will be overjoyed by the continuation of previous decisions in the city.

Across Australia, the property development industry has been actively calling for and supporting forced local government amalgamations - it has also been substantially contributing to political party funds. Their interests, though, are not those of the communities within which they operate and upon which they have the greatest impacts. Larger councils, the property interests consider, are more likely to approve ultra-high-density developments that give them the greatest profits - partly because they will be more party-political but more because they are less able to give community-based scrutiny to complex development proposals.

http://www.governmentnews.com.au/2017/02/regional-council-mergers-halted-sydney-mergers-stand/?platform=hootsuite

Monday, January 23, 2017

Lest We Forget. WA Parallels in NSW?

Just in case there might be some truth in Col's hoping that voters have short memories, along comes NSW Premier Mike Baird's resignation, at least partly in response to a massive decline in popularity resulting from forced local government amalgamations.

Almost exactly two years ago, WA Premier Colin Barnett finally 'ran up the white flag' in response to widespread opposition to his proposed forced local council mergers.

The immediate cause in NSW might be more specific than those causing Col Pot's retreat in WA in 2015, but the result could be the same - victory for community and commonsense.

There is still much water to flow under this particular bridge, but even such speculation is heartening.

I urge the people of WA not to forget Barnett's perfidy in trying to force council amalgamations despite having ruled them out in the previous election. March 11, 2017, is our opportunity to make him and his government pay for lying to us and wasting so much of our time, effort, money and emotional energy in making him see reason.
http://www.governmentnews.com.au/2017/01/deliverance-will-new-nsw-premier-smash-council-mergers-de-merge-others/?platform=hootsuite