Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose - Again

Quintus Cicero (who apparently possessed a penchant for outrageous acts of cruelty) is reputed to have penned advice for his brother, Marcus Tullius Cicero, on how to get elected as Consul of Rome over 2000 years ago - pre-dating the more notorious 'The Prince' by Nicolo Machiavelli by over 1500 years. Eureka Street has drawn attention to this in the context of the current Federal election, but (at least) one aspect is clearly demonstrated by the WA State Election in 2013.

Quintus Cicero wrote that anyone seeking election should:
Promise everything to everyone. If problems arise after the election it is easier to deal with them if you are in power.

Sound familiar? In the 2013 election campaign, Colin Barnett promised 'no forced amalgamations of local government', most specifically to his western suburbs constituents. Just a few months later he is in the process of forcing such amalgamations across the metropolitan area and his constituents are faced with the prospect of a single mega-council.

I wonder (rhetorically) what the result of the election would have been if he had been honest before the election.

Methinks, however, that Emperor Barnett has also been influenced by Machiavelli, who noted that a prince is praised for keeping his word but is also praised for the illusion of being reliable in keeping his word. 

A prince, therefore, should only keep his word when it suits his purposes, but do his utmost to maintain the illusion that he does keep his word and that he is reliable in that regard.

Emperor Col seems to have taken the first part of that to heart, most notoriously (but not solely - http://brokenpromises.org.au) in forced local government amalgamations, but failed to grasp the latter. 


I suppose we should be thankful for small mercies. At least we can see his lies for what they are.

Doomed to Repeat History?

Perth Voice, 17th August 2013, p7

How Not To Understand A Community

In the debate on Mark McGowan's Motion on a Matter of Public Interest, the Minister for Local Government, Tony Simpson (I'm sure there must be lots of apposite Simpsons quotes to come for this whole charade) made some very illuminating comments.

He said: "I took the opportunity to drive up and down Beaufort Street". Is that the sum total of Mr Simpson's knowledge of the Mt Lawley area for which he proposes major upheavals? He might, at least, have walked for a while, perhaps talked to a few people, taken the time to hear how people feel about their community.

He also said: "The Mayor of Belmont was at the breakfast today and raised one good point with me. He said that the City of Belmont provides some fantastic services to its community with security patrols and so forth. He asked, “Am I expected to do the same for Pickering Brook up in Kalamunda?” I said, “Well, no. At the end of the day the ratepayers are entitled to the same service they get today but I am sure with the two coming together we can deliver better services. But I know for a fact, because I represent Pickering Brook, that they do not want the services of the City of Belmont because they live in a rural atmosphere and that’s what they like living there for."

This raises key questions about community of interest.

And then there is pure sloppiness. Mr Simpson said: "I thought that the whole of the airport site had been put into the City of Belmont to make sure there was clearly one local government for the City of Belmont and the airport, but interestingly they [people at the Property Council breakfast] identified that a corner of the industrial area has been missed out."

This is inexcusable sloppiness in the development of public policy that that will have major effects on the lives and businesses of the people of Perth for decades to come.

The Minister should not rely on the Local Government Advisory Board to rectify the deficiencies in his proposals. Indeed, there are limits on the extent to which the Board can make a recommendation that differs from that into which it was asked to inquire (see para 6, below). A recommendation for a proposal that is 'significantly different' from the one into which the Board was asked to inquire triggers a whole new process, requiring:

(a) notice to affected local governments, affected electors and the other electors of districts directly affected by the recommendation 

(b) adequate opportunity for submissions to be made about the intended order; and

(c) consideration of those submissions by the LGAB.

If a local government was this sloppy, the Minister would, no doubt, be jumping up and down and decrying its inefficiency. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander, Minister.

Extract from Hansard, 6th August 2013

Mr A.J. SIMPSON: It is all about making sure we develop a vibrant city and making sure we get it right. I must admit that there will always be some anomalies in the system. As I said at question time today, I took the opportunity to drive up and down Beaufort Street, and that was one of the clear things that came back to me at the Beaufort Street festival. But just keep in mind, members, that the current boundary between the City of Vincent and the City of Perth is Newcastle Street. The Northbridge festival seems to operate all right and does not seem to have a problem with the boundary on Newcastle Street. As we look at where the boundaries lie, I must agree that there are some anomalies in the system. Perhaps the Beaufort Street boundary will not work and we may have to move it up a bit. However, the proposals for the City of Stirling, the City of Bayswater and the City of Perth will be put to the Local Government Advisory Board to identify any anomaly that needs to be looked at. This morning at the Property Council breakfast people from Perth Airport identified an anomaly. I thought that the whole of the airport site had been put into the City of Belmont to make sure there was clearly one local government for the City of Belmont and the airport, but interestingly they identified that a corner of the industrial area has been missed out. The most important thing again is that the Gateway WA project and the airport development will all be within one local government all the way through to Forrestfield and High Wycombe and up into the rural aspect of Kalamunda. The Mayor of Belmont was at the breakfast today and raised one good point with me. He said that the City of Belmont provides some fantastic services to its community with security patrols and so forth. He asked, “Am I expected to do the same for Pickering Brook up in Kalamunda?” I said, “Well, no. At the end of the day the ratepayers are entitled to the same service they get today but I am sure with the two coming together we can deliver better services. But I know for a fact, because I represent Pickering Brook, that they do not want the services of the City of Belmont because they live in a rural atmosphere and that’s what they like living there for. They’re not in that process.”

Extract from Schedule 2.1 to the Local Government Act 1995.

6.         Recommendation by Advisory Board

               (1)         After formally inquiring into a proposal, the Advisory Board, in a written report to the Minister, is to recommend* — 

                           (a)         that the Minister reject the proposal; or

                           (b)         that an order be made in accordance with the proposal; or

                           (c)         if it thinks fit after complying with subclause (2), the making of some other order that may be made under section 2.1.

               * Absolute majority required.

               (2)         The Advisory Board is not to recommend to the Minister the making of an order that is significantly different from the proposal into which it formally inquired unless the Board has — 

                           (a)         given* notice to affected local governments, affected electors and the other electors of districts directly affected by the recommendation of its intention to do so; and

                           (b)         afforded adequate opportunity for submissions to be made about the intended order; and

                           (c)            considered any submissions made.

* Absolute majority required.

Broken Promises and Dishonesty

Somehow missing from media coverage (at least, any that I saw) was Tuesday's debate on a "Matter of Public Interest" in which Mark McGowan moved:
"That this house condemns the Premier for his numerous broken promises and dishonesty in misleading the people of Western Australia before the election in relation to the issue of forced council amalgamations." 

Tedious though parliamentary debates often are, this one is well worth reading (http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Hansard/hansard.nsf/0/c20cc26db0fd91fa48257bbf0069d275/$FILE/A39%20S1%2020130806%20p15e-27a.pdf) as it highlights the extent to which the Premier engages in linguistic gymnastics to obscure the undeniable fact that he is forcing his version of amalgamations on local governments and their communities. He continually reverts to the argument that 30 councils is too many for the metropolitan area while ignoring the non-sensical outcomes of his simplistic solutions.

Reducing the number of local governments in the metropolitan area might be desirable, but let those who live there have a say and you would end up with boundaries that had some semblance of community of interest about them.

Just for the record, here are the recorded votes - along party lines as one would expect. It will be interesting to see whether any LibNats are willing to stand up to Bully Barnett in later votes on substantial issues - but I'm not holding my breath.

Ayes (17 - all Labor) 

Ms L.L. Baker       Mr M. McGowan      Ms M.M. Quirk      Mr B.S. Wyatt 

Mr R.H. Cook       Ms S.F. McGurk       Mrs M.H. Roberts   Mr D.A. Templeman (Teller) 

Ms J.M. Freeman   Mr M.P. Murray       Ms R. Saffioti 

Mr D.J. Kelly        Mr P. Papalia            Mr C.J. Tallentire 

Mr F.M. Logan     Mr J.R. Quigley        Mr P.B. Watson 

Noes (34 - all Liberal/National) 

Mr P. Abetz          Ms M.J. Davies         Mr C.D. Hatton          Mr D.C. Nalder 

Mr F.A. Alban      Mr J.H.D. Day          Mr A.P. Jacob            Mr J. Norberger 

Mr C.J. Barnett     Ms W.M. Duncan      Dr G.G. Jacobs          Mr D.T. Redman 

Mr I.C. Blayney    Ms E. Evangel           Mr S.K. L’Estrange   Mr A.J. Simpson 

Mr I.M. Britza       Mr J.M. Francis         Mr R.S. Love             Mr M.H. Taylor 

Mr T.R. Buswell   Mrs G.J. Godfrey      Mr W.R. Marmion     Mr T.K. Waldron 

Mr G.M. Castrilli   Mr B.J. Grylls           Mr P.T. Miles            Mr J.E. McGrath (Teller) 

Mr V.A. Catania    Dr K.D. Hames         Ms A.R. Mitchell 

Mr M.J. Cowper    Mrs L.M. Harvey      Mr N.W. Morton

Pairs (balanced absence from the House for approved reasons)

Ms J. Farrer (ALP)                                Dr M.D. Nahan (Liberal)

Mr W.J. Johnston (ALP)                       Mr R.F. Johnson  (Liberal)

Dr A.D. Buti (ALP)                              Mr A. Krsticevic  (Liberal)

Not recorded (presumably absent)

Mr P C Tinley (ALP)

Thanks…but no thanks

In a Nutshell, from Freo's View (click for link)

W.A. Premier Colin Barnett says in five years time we will all thank him for the local council amalgamations and ask ourselves what all the fuss was about, but the outcry is not about not wanting council mergers, it is about the fact that the Premier wants to force them when he said before the election he wouldn’t. It is also about getting better boundaries for the council mergers, not the lazy options the state government proposes.

Secret Minutes from the Emperor's Bunker

The document below, which throws an interesting, if unsurprising, light on the decision-making of the WA Government, has come into the possession of this blogger. I can't vouch for its authenticity (but it seems believable in the light of recent events) and unfortunately only the first page could be retrieved - so we might never know what was resolved under the heading of 'Abolishing the Opposition', but extrapolation from the local government item is strongly suggestive.

Anyway, for what it is worth (perhaps no more than a good laugh - and if you didn't laugh at what the Emperor does you'd be crying non-stop), here is the document (click on it to make larger).

Waiting for an Accessible Taxi

For decades, people with disabilities have had to put up with a second-class taxi service with only a proportion of taxis being wheelchair-accessible. This has been justified on the basis that there was no generally-acceptable taxi vehicle that was wheelchair accessible.

The quid pro quo was that the taxi industry undertook to provide comparable response times for phone bookings, but this has been more a hope than an expectation - and did not help people with disabilities get a taxi at a rank or hailing on the street. In recent times, the WA Taxi Council has been trying to weasel out of even this concession by seeking an exemption from the requirement from the Australian Human Rights Commission, which oversees the Standards.

So it was with disbelief, tinged with sadness, that I saw the Department of Transport advertising in The West Australian (Saturday 3rd August, p44) for manufacturer expressions of interest for a 'purpose-built taxi trial' that did not mention accessibility at all.

This is a once-only opportunity to move towards a totally accessible taxi fleet - as, for example, New York is doing.

It is no longer the case that there is no generally-acceptable taxi vehicle that is wheelchair accessible. New York can do it and there are numerous vehicles in most other developed countries that are used as accessible taxis - not just the basic van-based vehicles we see in Perth.

I call upon the Department of Transport to withdraw its current call for expressions of interest for a purpose-built taxi trial and to replace it with one that calls for the vehicles to be wheelchair-accessible.

When Consolidation and Amalgamation really mean Fragmentation and Confusion

Despite all the rhetoric from the emperor about effectiveness, efficiency, co-ordination and simplification in the current shenanigans about forced local government amalgamations, there is at least one place where the situation has been made much more complex.

The Beaufort Street/Mt Lawley centre is a thriving commercial and cafe strip, but has always had difficulties because it was split between two Councils with rather different planning and community-development philosophies relating to town centres.

Emperor Barnett now proposes to split this centre between three local governments.

To add to the complication, Stirling was previously responsible for the area north of Walcott Street, but now takes over one side of the area of Beaufort Street that was previously the domain of the City of Vincent. The City of Perth takes over the other part of the previous City of Vincent responsibility. And Bayswater/Bassendean takes over the area previously the responsibility of the City of Stirling.

So, EVERYONE has to adjust to the oversight of a different local government from the one they deal with now. How is that supposed to bring about improvement?

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

When the Town of Vincent was hived off from the City of Perth by the then Liberal Premier, Richard Court, in 1994, the southern boundary was set at Newcastle Street, partly to ensure that the potentially troublesome Vincent community would have no say in, or ability to make waves about, the Northbridge Tunnel.

Fast forward to 2013 and look at the maps for the new boundary between the City of Perth and the proposed Victoria Park/South Perth local government.

The most immediately-obvious thought is to ask why Belmont Racecourse didn't go with the rest of the Burswood Pensinsula rather than being left as an outlier for South Park, with all the difficulties of servicing such an area. And the initially-cynical response is that the racecourse doesn't generate the income for local government that the Casino does - as if the City of Perth needed more than it already generates, but that's a separate issue.

But then, perhaps the Burswood boundary issue is not just about the money. Look closely and you see that the new boundaries place Emperor Barnett's new colosseum firmly within the new City of Perth - preventing the potentially troublesome South Park community having any say in, or ability to make waves about, the Stadium.

A distinct feeling of deja vu, here.

Pre-empting the Parliament

Colin Barnett is acting as though the removal of the current provisions of the Local Government Act that give residents the right to demand a poll on proposed amalgamations were a fait accompli. In fact, this move has to be approved by both houses of the WA Parliament and this has not yet happened.

It might well be the case that he has the numbers in both Houses of Parliament, but the debate at least needs to be had in the Parliament so that those of us in the great unwashed can clearly see the arrogance and hypocrisy of this Government.

It seems, for example, that the emperor only has the numbers in the Upper House if country councils are somehow exempted from the type of amalgamations to be forced on the metropolitan area. How likely is this, however, when Barnett is quoted as saying: "…local governments had been given the chance to merge voluntarily, but had chosen instead to persist with a situation in which some councils govern as few as 500 people" (http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/perths-local-councils-to-be-slashed-in-half-20130730-2qwht.html).

There are no metropolitan local governments with 'as few as 500 people', so he is clearly flagging forced amalgamations for country local governments as well.

So how will Brendan Grylls justify supporting forced amalgamations to his constituents?

I know, from personal experience of living in country WA and from talking with elected members from country councils when I was a councillor for the then Town of Vincent, that there are many good reasons why the configuration of country local governments should be different from metropolitan ones - even beyond the obvious ones of physical size and population density.

Colin Barnett appears to have a much more simplistic approach that ignores the realities of life.

I call on Brendan Grylls not to support a double-standard for local government. I call on him to reject forced amalgamations of local governments, whether they be metropolitan or country and the best way of doing this is by ensuring that residents continue to have the right to call a poll on any proposed amalgamations.

Even in the metropolitan area, Eleni Evangel, the recently-elected MLA for Perth, has come out in support of retaining the City of Vincent in its current form (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/18263711/fury-at-barnett-over-poll-pledge) - a much stronger position, ironically, than that of the Vincent Council, which seems to have rolled over and accepted the inevitability of its demise by supporting reincorporation into the City of Perth.

I wish Eleni Evangel all the best in this campaign. As a new Member of Parliament, she will be subjected to all sorts of pressure to conform to the emperor's wishes. I sincerely hope she is able to resist this pressure and reflect what I believe are the views of most of her constituents who live in the City of Vincent.

Promises, Promises

First we had John Howard making a distinction between 'core' and 'non-core' promises.

Then we had Tony Abbott telling us that we could only be sure he was telling us the truth if he was reading from a script. Go have a look at YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc5ljcri6Nk&noredirect=1) if you want to see Tony Abbott taken apart by Kerry O'Brien on this.

Now we have Colin Barnett telling us that promises don't matter because "I don't think people study the promises" (see below para 6). Of course this begs the question: if people don't study the promises, why make them in the first place?

Well, I've got news for Mr Barnett - it really doesn't matter what he thinks, the fact is that many of us do study the promises before we vote in an election. And we have the right to believe that we are not being lied to when such promises are made.

This is by no means the first broken promise from the 2013 WA Election (http://brokenpromises.org.au) - and that's only in the first four months.

And a word of praise for Eleni Evangel, MLA for Perth, who has publicly broken ranks with the Premier, at least on the subject of the City of Vincent (see para 3 and the last two paras, above). She obviously knows her electorate well enough to recognise the good things Vincent does and the support it has in the community.

Emperor Barnett turns Dictator - and lapdog Simpson rolls over

Those who have been in Outer Mongolia for the past few days might not be aware that the WA Government has announced its intention to force amalgamations of and some other boundary changes to metropolitan local governments. If you want a comprehensive catch-up, go to http://canningaccountability.com.

Of course, the Premier denies that these are 'forced amalgamations', but in the same breath said that: "…there will be no room for negotiation, beyond some minor tweaking of the proposed borders". (http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/perths-local-councils-to-be-slashed-in-half-20130730-2qwht.html) 

Incidentally, I think he means 'boundaries' - borders are generally between sovereign entities. Or is he planning to grant self-government to these new larger local governments? 

And as for the Minister for Local Government - Sir Humphrey (Appleby) of ‘Yes, Minister’ fame would be immensely proud of a Minister who could, with a straight face, say he was going to change “the poll provisions in the Local Government Act to make them more democratic so more of the population would have a say on any proposed amalgamations”  by removing the only provision that actually allows the people affected to have a say in the process.

This is precisely what Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, has done!

On 4th June, 2013, he "flagged changes to the poll provisions in the Local Government Act to make them more democratic so that more of the population would have a say on any proposed amalgamations" (Metropolitan Local Government Reform Update, Issue 2 - http://metroreform.dlg.wa.gov.au/Content/Updates/View.aspx?ItemID=68466E644D53563158684D3D)

On 30th July, 2013, the Minister was party to an announcement by the Premier that: "The government will also override the existing 'Dadour Bill', which currently gives the public the power to veto any council mergers or boundary changes via a referendum." (http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/perths-local-councils-to-be-slashed-in-half-20130730-2qwht.html) 

Oh well - probably tilting at windmills again - but there are a lot of people who don't like what is being foisted on them. If enough of us get together, especially those who live in marginal electorates, perhaps we can actually change something. 

Oh! I forgot. Didn't Colin Barnett say something about 2013 being his last election - so he doesn't really give a toss about the next election - but I would have thought his party colleagues might.

Anyway, here's today's tilt - published on the letters page of the West Australian. [Click on image to enlarge.]

Update on (Dis)Utilities

On September 14 last year, I railed against the organisations responsible for disruption to our footpaths. I mentioned a particular Telstra yellow fence that had gone walkabout and been replaced - with no action (in 12 months) on the temporary phone connection it was intended to protect.

Well, that particular offending yellow fence has gone - today - after more than 18 months. I now have a permanent phone connection again. Not so lucky are at least two residents of Grosvenor Road, who still have yellow fences and temporary connections, which I first noted back in September last year.

Most disturbing, though, is that the fence outside my place only got removed, and the problem dealt with, after a nasty piece of vandalism early Sunday morning. About 12.40 in the morning, someone (perhaps it was a 'tired and emotional' (as a newt) Portsmouth supporter, distressed after losing the FA Cup Final) was roaming down this part of Vincent Street doing random damage (mail box at 96; fence palings removed/damaged further down the street) and seemed to take particular exception to the yellow Telstra fence that has resided outside here for the past 18 months.

When Telstra replaced it last September (after the previous one went walkabout), they strapped it to a timber picket infill piece of the front fence next door (presumably to reduce the risk of its going walkabout again). So - when the yellow fence was levered away from the wall, it actually pulled off the timber infill and one of the pieces of timber broke. This was then used to vandalise my son-in-law's car - smashed windscreen and several large dents above the front door.

I last spoke with Telstra just a few weeks ago and was told that 12-18 months was their expected time to deal with such matters (hey - I'd got to 18 months and nothing yet!) but they would try to put it on the work program for the coming month (no sign yet! - until this morning after vociferous complaints). This is real third-world country stuff - never mind rolling out broadband, how about getting the basics right first!

The point is that not only are the fences a danger to people using the footpath (here, that includes at least two elderly gentlemen who use gophers and cyclists riding fairly fast down the hill, as well as pedestrians including my three young grandchildren) but are an invitation to vandalism.

Thank you…

…to all those who voted for me in the election. Unfortunately there weren't enough of you to get me back onto Council.

I have (mainly) enjoyed the past fourteen and a half years, although there were times when I wondered why any sane person would do it, and I will miss being involved in the community in that way.

On the other hand, I get my life back. I might even get my front fence rebuilt before it finally collapses.

To all the new Councillors - good luck. I do wonder if you realise what you have let yourselves in for! It is a lot more than two Council meetings a month.

To the new Council as a whole - I hope you continue to be genuinely Vincent, with our unique way of doing things.

To the Town's Administration and staff - thank you for all your support over the years.

I live east of the Administration Centre, so I can't ride off into the sunset. Perhaps it is more fitting, anyway, in terms of getting my life back, to ride off towards the sunrise.

Don't believe all you read in the newspapers

Given that the Perth Voice has been invited back to the media table in the Town of Vincent Council chamber, I was extremely disappointed to read the inaccurate rendering of the serious debate on the Uniting Care Hostel at 19 Lincoln Street.

At no time did I or any other elected member call for the shelter to be 'axed' (as was reported in the article in the Voice). What I did call for, with unanimous support from my fellow elected members, was to defer a decision on the matter to allow for discussions to take place that might produce a better outcome for all concerned.

The Voice reporter would have had in front of him at the media table the amendment calling for live-in supervision - this was in the name of Cr Maier. I seconded this purely to allow it to be debated. I spoke and voted against it on the basis that we did not have sufficient information to be able to suggest that this alone would resolve any issues.

Far from there being a 'war of words' between myself and Cr Doran Wu, I supported her statements that people have a right to live independently with a sense of dignity. Simply placing people who have nothing in common except their homelessness in a house in a residential area, however, does not do justice to the dignity of either the residents of the hostel or the other residents of the local area.

I think that initiatives such as 55 Central, reported in the adjacent article, have got the balance better. Natarsha Tryl, a volunteer with 55 Central is quoted as saying: "[The homeless] really need to have something to look forward to and to feel part of the community." Well said, Natarsha.

The 55 Central website clearly sets out the philosophy of the association. This includes supporting the individual in "regaining their interdependence and valuable place in the community".

Simply living in a house is not a cure for homelessness, no matter what support is provided; being part of the community, not isolated from it, is essential.

Advice from the Returning Officer

I have now had advice from the Returning Officer for Vincent that ballot papers that use only a cross (for one or two candidates - each elector can vote for one or two candidates, as there are two vacancies in the South Ward) will be accepted, but that where a cross is used for one and a tick for the other, the vote with a cross will be declared invalid. The vote with a tick will be accepted as valid.

My Mistake

The previous post on this blog originally contained an error, which has now been corrected (see below). I take full responsibility for this error and can only hope that those of you who have already voted followed the instructions in the voting package from the Electoral Commission. I will be seeking advice about what the implications of anyone having voted with a cross might be.

The advert to the right will appear in the Perth Voice for Saturday 3 October.

Time Flies

It hardly seems four years since I last stood for re-election, but my calendar assures me it is.
The Electoral Commission today (Wednesday, 23 September) started mailing out ballot papers to those on the electoral roll. If you think you are on the electoral roll but have not received your ballot papers by, say, Friday 2 October, you should contact the WA Electoral Commission on (08) 9214 0400 to, first, check that you are on the electoral roll for Vincent (or you can check your enrolment on-line at https://www.waec.wa.gov.au/check_enrolment/index.php). If you are on the roll, you can ask for replacement voting papers from the Town of Vincent (Phone 9273 6000).

My thanks to those of you who voted for me in 2005. I hope you are able to do so again.

For all of you, including those voting for the first time in this local government election, I urge you to be informed and to make use of your vote.

To help you be informed, here is an electronic copy of my election leaflet - just click on the images for a larger, more readable version. For more information, you can scroll down this blog or e-mail me at ian_ker@hotmail.com.

When I originally posted this blog, the leaflet contained an error, showing a cross instead of a tick in the voting part. I have now corrected this.



Unlike other election fliers I have seen so far, this is not simply a list of vague statements or aspirations but a coherent history of achievements and a logical basis for moving into the future.

And just one reminder: voting closes at 6.00pm on Saturday 17 October but postal ballots have to be received by close of business on Friday 16 October. If you think you might be late, you can still bring your completed voting package to the Town of Vincent Administration Centre, 244 Vincent Street (cnr Loftus Street) up to 6pm on Saturday 17 October.

Help Me To Help You (and others)

It occurred to me as I was writing the previous post, that 'someone should do something'.

As an elected Councillor, I have a responsibility be that someone!

SO, if you see or know of a public utility installation in the Town of Vincent that is causing a problem, especially if it has been doing so for more than a few days, let me know (e-mail: ian_ker@hotmail.com - photo would be great, but not essential) and I will ask Town of Vincent staff to follow up with the offending agency.

For any that are not cleared up in a reasonable time, I will 'name and shame' here and also pass on to interested local newspapers.

Let's take some community action to reclaim our streets - and also to get some decent service from those no-longer-quite-so-public utilities.

On Public (Dis)Utilities…

It's amazing how often so-called public utilities make life hazardous for the people of Perth.

For some months recently, Western Power had various large holes in the footpath on William Street outside Hyde Park Court, forcing people either to walk in the road (this photograph was completely unstaged!) or to cross busy William Street twice - at least once without the benefit of any traffic control. Repeated representations by Town of Vincent staff did eventually get this fixed, but Western Power never did explain why it thought it acceptable to inconvenience the public for so long.

My wife did ask one of the workers who were there one day (most days there was no one there doing anything) and was told that a major problem had been found that required some specialised attention. But that still doesn't explain why Western Power doesn't adopt the practice of most other places where a temporary cover (often a steel sheet or timber platform) would be placed over the hole, so that pedestrian access could be maintained.

And then there are the Telstra yellow fences, which surely must be the Perth equivalent of the UK's red traffic cones even though not quite so fecund. I note, though, from the above picture, that Western Power knows all about traffic cones!

The Perth Voice recently ran an article with a photograph of John Hyde and one of the offending fences.

I am sure those who read this article will be sad to hear that the fence with which John had a photographic relationship (which had resided outside my home for nearly 12 months) has disappeared. Not, however, because the phone line has been fixed, but because someone walked off with it during the night.

It has gone walkabout twice before, but been found nearby - but this time someone presumably decided to take it on a permanent vacation (although what you would do with such a fence (apart from the obvious) is beyond me). Quite possibly, they understandably got fed up with having the footpath half-blocked - for which I sincerely apologise - but I do need a phone line and Telstra will not, it seems, reinstate my underground connection.

Anyway, I rang Telstra - I think the person I spoke to must have been somewhere far from Australia, as she apparently didn't know that a number with area code 08 and postcode 6050 would be in Western Australia - she asked me twice which state I was in.

I tried to explain that I didn't think it was satisfactory service in the first place for a temporary line to be laid across the surface of the footpath for nearly 12 months, but I don't think the message got through. I did, however, get some response when I said that the cable (sans fence) was a trip hazard - and was duly told someone would be out this afternoon.

And, indeed, someone did come (Yeah!) - and the fence has been replaced (Yeah?) - and this time strapped to a fence post so it can't walk away, making me wonder if this is going to be a permanent arrangement (Oh! No!). All this in the time it took me to make and drink a cup of coffee away from my office at the front of the house - so I didn't actually see it done and no one came to the door to tell me.

BUT I still have only a temporary phone connection - and I rather suspect I will have gone back to the bottom of the queue as there will now be a record of some action having taken place on 14 September 2009.

Next time I ring Telstra, I shall prepare myself with a range of descriptions when asked what state I am in - indignation and frustration come to mind, as do other less polite terms.