Improving Local Government in WA

The WA Government is undertaking a review of the Local Government Act. Stage 1 covered areas where some immediate improvements could be made. Stage 2 covers more strategic issues:

The review is probably timely, given that the current Act was passed in 1995 and represented considerable change from the way local government in WA had operated since the 1960s. However, it is unfortunate that neither the discussion papers nor any other documentation relating to the Review clearly defines problems that the Review is intended to address. Instead, they set out a broad vision for local government without providing a context for assessing whether proposed reforms would improve the performance of local government. 

This is particularly pertinent in the case of the pro-forma surveys attached to each of the detailed discussion papers, which ask for simplistic responses (eg ‘Yes’, ‘No’, ‘Unsure’) to a series of questions without adequate (or, in many cases, any) supporting information. This 'tick-a-box' approach to consultation is an insult to those wishing to make a considered submission to the Review and is unlikely to provide useful information.

I'd strongly encourage anyone still considering making a submission to do so in their own words rather than simply ticking boxes defined by the authors of the Review.

Anyway, here is my submission, for what it is worth. [NB click on each page to enlarge.]

-->

WA Government Wants More Conflicted 'Experts' in Planning and Design

On 28th November, the WA Government called for nominations for a State Design Review Panel https://www.planning.wa.gov.au/sdrp.aspx. Nominations close on Friday 21 December at 2pm.

Pause to observe the timing of this nomination period when so many people have other things that require their attention - minor things like school holidays, getting ready for Christmas, going on Holiday. Indeed, the last day of sitting for the WA legislative Assembly was 29th November and the Legislative Council 6th December, so our pollies are 'out of session', too - not to say that they're not working in some form, but they're not actually doing the work of governing.

The role of the Panel is described as being to "help improve the design of development and infrastructure proposals, assist with achieving best value from investment, and ensure that projects maximise their contribution to the built environment for the benefit of the community".

Sounds good - but the devil definitely resides in the detail.

In practice, the effect will be to remove consideration of design (and associated development bonuses) from the JDAPs (which have two local council members (out of 5 total), so only require one 'renegade' specialist member to refuse an application). So, having removed all larger development decisions from elected councils, they are now, in effect, to be removed from the JDAPs to hide behind a totally unelected group of specialists whose independence is chronically compromised by their reliance on property, development and landowner interests for so much of their income.

Moreover, despite the Panel's being required to work "for the benefit of the community" there are no community representatives. This poses the considerable question of who determines what is for the benefit of the community?

Then, the membership. The 'core members' of the Panel will be drawn from the same 'specialists' as the majority membership of the Development Assessment Panels: architecture, landscape architecture, urban design and planning. Admittedly, there will also be a number of 'technical specialists' drawn from a wide range of disciplines, but their expertise will only be called upon "for those review sessions where it will be relevant".

It was suggested to me that I should nominate, as my qualifications and experience cover a number of these 'technical specialist' areas, but I have very severe concerns about the Terms of Reference for the Panel.

Most important of my concerns is the draconian requirement for confidentiality which, in effect, prevents Panel members, including technical specialists, from participating in other forums or communities covering matters of urban planning and design - potentially even when they are not specifically dealing with a development for which they have been a party to discussions.

Despite the high-sounding definitions of 'Best Practice' and 'Design Principles', the functioning of the Panel appears to ignore some key aspects.

Best Practice
- Independence. As I have previously noted, JDAP specialist members (and hence 'core members of the DRP) have an unavoidable and systemic conflict of interest, as much of their professional income is derived from large landowners and property developers.
- Accountability.  The advice that the Panel provides "must be clearly seen to work for the benefit of the public" - but all proceedings of the Panel are confidential and there is no mention of Minutes being taken or of their availability if they are.
- Transparency. "The Panel's remit, membership, governance processes and funding should always be in the public domain". Yet all proceedings of the Panel are confidential and there is no mention of Minutes being taken or of their availability if they are.

Design Principles 
- Context and Character. Good design "responds to and enhances the distinctive characteristics of a local area, contributing to a sense of place".  A 'sense of place' is more than just built form - without community input, this will be no more than technical 'experts' making their own judgment rather than being based on actual experience of people in the affected communities, each of which will have its own distinct and potentially very different characteristics.

Architects Not The Repository Of All Wisdom

A week ago, I wrote about the importance of communities in the planning and development decision-making process (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com/2018/11/keeping-planning-review-issues-alive.html).

Yesterday, I was taken to task by the President of the Australian Institute of Architects (WA) for apparent not understanding the unique role of architects. According to Suzanne Hunt architects can do no wrong and we should entrust development decisions to them because of the unique skills and experience.

Well, I beg to differ - and fortunately the West Australian published my riposte in today's letters page.

In neither of my letters did I mention (because the West would be less likely to publish if I did) the undeniable fact that many 'specialist members' of the DAPs have an endemic conflict of interest as most of their income is derived from large landowners and property developers - not necessarily in the case of any specific development but generally (see my submission to the Review of the WA Planning System).

I'm not the only one who didn't like Suzanne Hunt's reply to my first letter - and the West also published a letter from Tony Phipps of Riverton based on personal experience. As I pointed out in my letter, architects don't have literally to live with the consequences of their planning decisions, but communities do.

Keeping Planning Review Issues Alive

Further to my earlier post about the need to keep a close eye on the current Review of the WA Planning System, especially in the lead-up to the festive season, here is my response to an article in the West Australian of 14th November, featuring the views of David Caddy, Chairman of the WAPC.

Of course, the limitations of a letter mean one can't deal with all the issues raised by the article, but it at least keeps the powers-that-be aware that community concerns are real, have not gone away and will not go away unless they are properly recognised in the outcome of the review.

Letters, West Australian, 16th November, 2018.
Click picture to enlarge

For balance (and for those who might have missed the original article) here is the piece with David Caddy's views.

https://thewest.com.au/business/commercial-property/resistance-site-size-hurdles-for-medium-density-uptake-ng-b881016356z
Click frames to enlarge

Planning System Review: Be Alert In Lead-Up To Christmas

Back in July, I drew attention to the WA Government's review of the planning system and posted my submission to that review (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com/2018/07/green-paper-modernising-western.html).

Objectives of the planning review include:

• Making strategic planning the cornerstone of all planning decisions;
• Opening up the planning system so that it is understandable to all;
• Clarifying local and State planning roles and functions of the WA Planning Commission and Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage;
• Responding to community concerns about accountability and transparency of Development Assessment Panels;
• Formally recognising the need for community participation;
• Creating more certainty for industry and cutting red tape; and
• Refining developer contribution schemes. 

The Green Paper did not, in my view, satisfactorily address some of the key issues that have been of concern to communities across Perth in recent years. Indeed, in some respects, its proposals would exacerbate those problems - most notably through expanding the role and influence of so-called specialist members of the DAPs to include domination of the WA Planning Commission as well.

In addition, there was no mention at all of enhancing the rights of individuals and communities in the appeal process.

Over 240 submissions were received and the review team in the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage is reviewing the submission to assist the Government in responding to the Green Paper.

Unlike most such Inquiries and Reviews (including, for example, the current review of the WA Local Government Act - https://www.dlgsc.wa.gov.au/localgovernment/strengthening/Pages/LGactreview-submissions.aspx), submissions do not appear to be available online for us to read. We will have no idea, therefore, of the views expressed, by whom they were expressed or how much the Government response actually relates to them.

There has been silence on the matter since submissions closed on 20th July, 2018, but given various statements previously made about 'quick wins' - not to mention the fact that we are approaching the halfway mark of this term of government - it would be reasonable to expect some response within 6 months. That puts it, of course, fairly and squarely in the silly season, when families are on holiday and most of us have our minds on other things than the WA planning system.

I might well be unduly cynical in drawing attention to the possibility that the Government's proposals for change might be announced in the lead-up to Christmas/New Year, thus slipping under the radar of many, especially community organisations that tend to go into recess in December/January. 

Indeed, I hope I am proved wrong, but just in case, I'll be keeping a close eye on what happens and bring it to attention here and on my Twitter account.

West Australian Looking For The Bad In Local Government

On Friday 14th September, the West Australian reported on the newly-released Annual Report of the Local Government Standards Panel ('Councillors face complaints surge', West Australian, 14 September), focusing on the increase in complaints rather than the substance of the report. 

The substance provides a rather less pessimistic picture.

Overall, there were fewer than six complaints per ten councils and less than one-third of those determined were upheld. That's less than one upheld complaint for every five councils in WA over the whole year.

For metropolitan councils, if we exclude Melville, which accounted for over a quarter of metropolitan complaints, there was less than one complaint per council. 

For non-metropolitan councils, if we exclude Port Hedland, which accounted for nearly 20% of regional complaints, there was one complaint for every three councils. 

These rates are hardly evidence of of systemic problem. Indeed, it could be argued that were the rates any lower it would be evidence that people didn't care sufficiently about local government. If anything, these rates are a strong suggestion that Melville and Port Hedland should be looked at much more closely for issues specific to them.

Even a 44% increase in such a small number is evidence of the axiom that "100% of very little is still very little" (usually expressed more bluntly than that) rather than anything else. There is not even any mention (nor was there in the LGSP report) of whether the 21 findings that a breach occurred was an increase on previous years, although this is surely a more important measure than the simple increase in the number of complaints.

Most important of all, the report (not to mention WALGA's reported response) ignores the fact only 17 of 82 complaints (just one per eight councils) came from the communities local councils serve. 

Source: Local Government Standards Panel Annual Report 2017-18 

WALGA's reported response, blaming newly-elected councillors being 'less aware of the rules of conduct' is pure supposition and appears to have more to do with WALGA's agenda to increase its influence by having mandatory training for all elected members than it has to do with the LGSP report itself.

The West Australian also fails to mention the stress imposed on the two-thirds of complained-against councillors where complaints were dismissed.

The Annual Report of the Local Government Standards Panel is available for download at http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/publications/tabledpapers.nsf/displaypaper/4011623a58e1eb7c0c121e964825830500335e4b/$file/1623.pdf

West Australian, 14 September 2018

-->

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.

Beware, Bill Marmion (and others) - Lessons from NSW

For some months now there has been relative peace and quiet on the WA local government front, but who knows what might happen after the March 2017 State election.

In NSW, however, the Baird Liberal Government continues to make waves with its forced local government amalgamations, some of which are still working their way through the courts. One of these is the forced amalgamation of Orange, Cabonne and Blayney Councils - the area that just happened to be the subject of a by-election last weekend.

The NSW State seat of Orange had been held by the Nationals since 1947, but no more. In what reports attribute to widespread discontent at the forced local government amalgamations and the stuffed-up ban (then non-ban) of greyhound racing, a right wing independent from the Shooters and Fishers Party has taken the seat.

Local Government NSW President Keith Rhoades said: "This massive repudiation of forced amalgamations comes hot on the heels of the September 10 local government elections, where voters of stand-alone councils sent an equally clear ‘back off’ message to the Liberal/National government".

The Nationals are a partner with the Liberals in the NSW Government and the basis of the voter discontent is said to be that the Nationals "had stood by and said nothing as Premier Mike Baird made 'arbitrary and arrogant decisions' without explaining these decisions to the community or consulting them" (http://www.governmentnews.com.au/2016/11/25625).

Does this sound familiar? I'm sure it does to many of those who were part of the community groundswell that eventually overcame Barnett's ideological push for larger councils in WA. Many local members were at best silent or even supported forced amalgamations in opposition to the voices of their communities.

More recently, Subiaco residents were appalled by the lack of support for their community by their local MLA, Bill Marmion, when faced by the dismembering of the City of Subiaco, without consultation, under the City of Perth Act.

These silent MPs, and Bill Marmion in particular, would do well to ponder their perfidy between now and March 2017. Whilst it is probably too much to hope that they might fall on their swords, it would be nice to hear the occasional 'mea culpa' and sincere promise (as distinct from disposable 'election commitment') to consult and listen to their communities in future.

Democracy Must Be Seen But Not Heard - Let's think outside the box

According to the ABC (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-10/new-local-government-minister-backs-media-gag-on-councillors/7919614), new Local Government Minister Paul Miles has backed the City of Perth's controversial ban on councillors speaking to the media, describing the policy as "democratic".

I guess we shouldn't be surprised coming from the same party (and presumably with the same Departmental advice) as his predecessor's description of the right of local communities to have a binding poll on local government amalgamations as "UNdemocratic" (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/a-peculiar-view-of-democracy.html).

Miles also reportedly said that councillors "had nothing to complain about because they knew, or should have known, the council's position when they sought election". 

The only possible interpretation of this baffling statement is that councillors cannot lobby for change from within and residents or ratepayers can only do so from without - and somehow have to get a majority of Council to see the light (definitely problematic with most of current City of Perth Council) and change policy without councillors themselves being able to say anything to gain awareness or support through the media.

How can it be democratic, Mr Miles, to place such a Catch-22 in the way of reform?

Thinking outside the box, though, the City of Perth policy doesn't prevent councillors from discussing matters with private individuals - and we all know how adept the media are at eavesdropping on and reporting private conversations. I suggest it would be very difficult (and politically counter-productive) to prove that a councillor knew the media were going to eavesdrop on a particular 'private' conversation.

And, yet again, WALGA appears to be conspicuous by its absence - despite the very real implicit threat that a similar ban could be imposed on all local governments in the name of democracy.

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

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

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.