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.]

-->

Totally predictable - but real culprit is NSW state government

Essentially same story as in WA - but equally flawed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Col Pot's Potty Economics

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

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

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

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

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