Thanks to the electronic archiving on-line of the Hansard records of parliamentary debates in Western Australia we can see some of the views expressed previously by the Premier of WA on local government.
On 9th November 1993, the Legislative Assembly debated the City of Perth Restructuring Bill, which had been introduced by the then Liberal Government. Colin Barnett was then Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party and Leader of the House in the Legislative Assembly - and hence responsible for ensuring the passage of the Bill through the lower house of the WA Parliament. Whilst he did not speak directly on the Bill, he made a number of interjections, including:
"Do you think it is equitable that the central city should cross-subsidise selected residential areas…? (Hansard, p6493). [By implication arguing that the about-to-be-created municipalities of Vincent, Victoria Park and Cambridge received subsidies from the CBD.]
"Sheer nonsense. What you are saying is that the dormitory areas of Perth are not viable, but suburbs everywhere else can pay for themselves." (Hansard, p6493) [By implication arguing that the about-to-be-created municipalities of Vincent, Victoria Park and Cambridge were viable.]
"Don't you believe in a capital city for Western Australia?" (Hansard p6496) [In response to comment from Diana Warnock that: "The Government has presented this report as justification for splitting up the city in this way and how it can be done economically. People simply are not able to believe the figures.]
"Where is the democracy in that?" (Hansard p6497) [In response to Diana Warnock's statement that : "Most of us want to see improvements in in the planning for the central city, and that is why we advanced the idea of a central city planning authority."]
"…of the 27 councillors only three represent the capital city. Little wonder that it is bereft of life, it lacks planning, it is visually unattractive, and it is empty at the weekends. That is a consequence of the imbalance of the Perth City Council structure, and that must be addressed. (Hansard, p6497). [Presumably this means that if Perth were to reabsorb the whole of Vincent, he would want to ensure that the 11,000 electors of the City of Perth would have more influence than the 20,000 electors of Vincent - a good old-fashioned gerrymander, reminiscent of Jo Bjelke Peterson in Queensland.]
"That is a very efficient council." (Hansard, p6514). [In response to mention of Peppermint Grove by Dr Geoff Gallop.]
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Friday, August 23, 2013
Stirring in the ranks
There is stirring in the ranks of those who are unhappy with Col's threat to remove the 'Dadour Amendment' poll provisions of the Local Government Act. This is an issue of democracy and does not depend on one's views of the proposed local government amalgamations themselves. If the proposals are well-thought-out and beneficial, Barnett should be able to convince us of their value.
Go to http://www.communityrun.org/petitions/my-local-government-my-decision for further information and to sign.
Go to http://www.communityrun.org/petitions/my-local-government-my-decision for further information and to sign.
Missing the Point
Mayor MacTiernan no doubt has her own personal recollections of the City of Perth, having been a Councillor there before being elected to the WA Parliament. These might have coloured her current perception.
She raises the issues of place-making and 'lively street cultures', without, apparently, realising that these are very different beasts in Vincent and Perth. Place-making in a capital city with a daytime transient population of over 100,000 (workers plus visitors) every day is different from placemaking in a smaller centre in close proximity to residents where activity is smaller-scale and more likely to be evenings and weekends
It was Vincent (at the instigation of myself and Vincent's Executive Director of Planning), along with Fremantle, Claremont, Cockburn, Gosnells, Kwinana, Subiaco and Victoria Park that sponsored the 2009 Mainstreet Conference. There was no interest in doing so from the City of Perth.
City of Perth does some good things, no doubt, but the skills and attitudes required to do these things in a CBD are not the same as those required for an inner-urban mixed residential area with urban villages.
I also hope that City of Perth, should Vincent be absorbed by it, becomes a bit more efficient and expeditious in carrying out infrastructure projects. How many years, now, has Wellington Street been a disaster area? And the changes to William Street and St George's Terrace seemed to go on for ever, too.
And, please, no more green worms - as one who fought against the pink milk crates that David Bromfield would have inflicted on the residents of Vincent, I've had more than my fill of garbage masquerading as art.
Word of the Week
Sociopath (from the Urban Dictionary)
A person with antisocial personality disorder. Probably the most widely recognized personality disorder. A sociopath is often well liked because of their charm and high charisma, but they do not usually care about other people. They think mainly of themselves and often blame others for the things that they do. They have a complete disregard for rules and lie constantly. They seldom feel guilt or learn from punishments.
From How to spot a sociopath
Sociopaths are masters at weaving elaborate fictional explanations to justify their actions. When caught red-handed, they respond with anger and threats, then weave new fabrications to explain away whatever they were caught doing.
Sociopaths are masters are presenting themselves as heroes with high morals and philosophy, yet underneath it they are the true criminal minds in society who steal, undermine, deceive, and often incite emotional chaos among entire communities. They are masters at turning one group of people against another group while proclaiming themselves to be the one true savior. Wherever they go, they create strife, argument and hatred, yet they utterly fail to see their own role in creating it. They are delusional at so many levels that their brains defy logical reasoning.
You cannot reason with a sociopath. Attempting to do so only wastes your time and annoys the sociopath.
A person with antisocial personality disorder. Probably the most widely recognized personality disorder. A sociopath is often well liked because of their charm and high charisma, but they do not usually care about other people. They think mainly of themselves and often blame others for the things that they do. They have a complete disregard for rules and lie constantly. They seldom feel guilt or learn from punishments.
From How to spot a sociopath
Sociopaths are masters at weaving elaborate fictional explanations to justify their actions. When caught red-handed, they respond with anger and threats, then weave new fabrications to explain away whatever they were caught doing.
Sociopaths are masters are presenting themselves as heroes with high morals and philosophy, yet underneath it they are the true criminal minds in society who steal, undermine, deceive, and often incite emotional chaos among entire communities. They are masters at turning one group of people against another group while proclaiming themselves to be the one true savior. Wherever they go, they create strife, argument and hatred, yet they utterly fail to see their own role in creating it. They are delusional at so many levels that their brains defy logical reasoning.
You cannot reason with a sociopath. Attempting to do so only wastes your time and annoys the sociopath.
At last……………
A Mayor who is willing to stand up and say that the emperor's forced local government changes are not in the interests of his community. [See 'Kwinana Comes to Life' for another.]
 |
| Perth Voice, Saturday 24th August 2013. [Click to enlarge] |
Another unfunded 'promise'
And we shouldn't be surprised if the bidding consortia build up the price now they know there could be $100 million more available.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Serendipitous Sunset
 |
| Sun sets on the City of Vincent (Photograph: Ian Ker © 2009) |
Singer/songwriter/folkie Don McLean was in Perth on Monday and, of course, he sang his 'anthem', Vincent. How eerily appropriate are these lines from that song:
I could have told you, Vincent, this world was never meant for one as beautiful as you.
They would not listen, they're not listening still, perhaps they never will.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
More Lies
Just when you thought it might (? - not really!) be safe to believe something a Minister in the Barnett Government said - even if only because even the most cynical of them must see their credibility getting rather thin - there comes another example of lies, incompetence, mushroom treatment or simple confusion.
Monday, August 19, 2013
Barnett Government Fails To Follow Due Process
It seems that local government is not the only issue on which the Barnett Government thinks itself above the law and its requirements for due process.
The WA Supreme Court has ruled invalid the WA Government's approval of the James Price Gas Hub in the Kimberley, on the grounds that the process was flawed.
The Barnett Government has shown similar lack of respect for well-established requirements of the law in its forcing of local government amalgamations and will be subject to similar legal challenges.
The WA Supreme Court has ruled invalid the WA Government's approval of the James Price Gas Hub in the Kimberley, on the grounds that the process was flawed.
The Barnett Government has shown similar lack of respect for well-established requirements of the law in its forcing of local government amalgamations and will be subject to similar legal challenges.
Friday, August 16, 2013
Victim Psychology
The more I look at the City of Vincent's graphic for its current campaign, the less clear I am what it means.
Is it a dove being released from the box it has been long-imprisoned in - perhaps reflecting a desire to escape into the big wide world? - aka the City of Perth?
Is it a homing pigeon that has been taken far from home and now being let go to see how long it takes to find its 'real' home? - aka the City of Perth?
Or is it a free bird about to be trapped in a box (aka the City of Perth?) it has no desire to be in and is trying to fly from?
Whatever the interpretation, it looks like passivity or victim psychology to me.
I much prefer the image of the Phoenix, symbolising renewal, resurrection and the exceptional.
Image from Wikimedia Commons - freely licensed media file (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phoenix-Fabelwesen.jpg)
Giving Away the Family Farm
What does Alannah MacTiernan mean when she says; "A merger with the City of Perth would see the benefits of these assets shared with all ratepayers"?
(http://www.vincent.wa.gov.au/Your_Community/Whats_On/News/2013/Vincent_to_Perth_-_One_in_ALL_in - 16th August)
After demonstrating the strength of the City of Vincent's financial position, including the many assets the Town/City has developed during the 18 years of its existence, she is apparently touting as a benefit of absorption into the City of Perth that the benefits of these will be diluted as far as Vincent ratepayers are concerned.
This all sounds like the bride-to-be in a forced marriage spruiking the majesty of her dowry to her future master. Unfortunately, most of this dowry has already been promised to the City of Perth by Colin Barnett.
And what would we get in return? The City of Perth is, no doubt, also well-off - apart from anything else, it gets lots of money from those car commuters who pound through Vincent every day to park in the City's car parks - but, on past experience, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any of that to be shared with us.
Twenty years ago, the business people of the CBD were only too pleased to be rid of us (and Victoria Park and Cambridge) because they thought they were subsidising the residential areas. Now, it seems, they want to reclaim the assets created by the people of those self-same residential areas. Alannah is clearly aware of this, as she says: "City of Perth ratepayers should not be concerned that merging with Vincent will be a drain on their resources as the assets and cash held by Vincent will be a boost to their bottom line".
Looks like a one-way trip to me - and you'd have to be on LSD to think it looked like a good deal for the people and businesses of Vincent.
Kwinana Comes to Life
It can be difficult for the Mayor of a local government to say what she really thinks of what is happening, when doing so is likely to prejudice the Premier even further against her. So, all praise to Carol Adams, Mayor of Kwinana for this.
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Coincidence - or a Threat?
Is it pure coincidence that the Local Government Advisory Board is due to report on Col's amalgamation proposals just before the local government elections that are due on 19th October 2013?
The answer to that question may lie (and I use the word advisedly) in comments made by Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, in a 'Local Government Update' on 5th August. He said:
"There will be a strong focus on achieving a seamless service delivery during the changeover to the planned local governments in 2015.
During the transition stage, local governments will continue to operate with their Chief Executive Officers in place to run the existing administrations until the new entities are created.
Commissioners will be appointed from the first day of the new entities and will continue in the role until the next elections in October 2015, about three-and-a-half months.
The Minister for Local Government can also appoint commissioners at an earlier stage if the reform process is unsatisfactory…"
In other words, if local Councils, or even their communities, continue to argue or protest we'll put Commissioners who will bow to the Government's will in their place.
Just ask residents of the City of Canning how well that is currently working for them!
Seems odd, also, to put Commissioners in for such a short period - except, of course, that they would be able to make sure that the new local governments were set up in exactly the compliant way that the emperor wants.
I wouldn't mind betting that we'll see commissioners (or should that be Commissars?) from October 2013 for all metropolitan local governments except those fortunate few that are unaffected by the changes or those that have already rolled over.
He Doesn't Care
That's what Colin Barnett said to Paul Murray on 6PR on Wednesday 14th August.
To be fair, he said that in the context of the actual boundaries between local governments. He is firm, though, he said on reducing the number of metropolitan local governments by half.
What most of us see though, Mr Premier, is a government that truly doesn't care about the community; a government for which the ends justify the means - a phrase coined (in Italian) by Niccolo Machiavelli in The Prince and infamously co-opted as a political dictum by Joseph Stalin.
The end does not justify the means, Mr Premier, because the long-term outcome of ignoring principles in order to buy short-term results is a failure of your own goals. When you have a principle, like 'do not steal', it cannot be overridden because you have some end in mind that you think will benefit several other people who 'deserve it more'.
When you have a principle like democracy, Mr Premier, it cannot be overridden because you think the changes you want to happen will be better for those affected.
The basic principle of democracy, Mr Premier, is that people have a right to a say in how government affects their lives.
In March 2013, Mr Premier, people voted for your government with the clear assurance from you that there would be no forced amalgamations of local governments.
That is not to say there should be no amalgamations, but there was a statutory process for investigating and determining such proposals, including the right of the people affected to reject them - with criteria (majority of those voting, subject to 50% poll turnout) that in practice are quite difficult to achieve unless people feel really strongly about the issue - typical local government election turnout, even with postal voting, is around 30%.
This process, Mr Premier, you have said you intend to subvert by removing the provision from the Local Government Act.
Are you really so unsure of yourself and your proposals, Mr Premier, that you don't think you can get the support of 30% of the people affected (for a high 60% turnout)?
To be fair, he said that in the context of the actual boundaries between local governments. He is firm, though, he said on reducing the number of metropolitan local governments by half.
What most of us see though, Mr Premier, is a government that truly doesn't care about the community; a government for which the ends justify the means - a phrase coined (in Italian) by Niccolo Machiavelli in The Prince and infamously co-opted as a political dictum by Joseph Stalin.
The end does not justify the means, Mr Premier, because the long-term outcome of ignoring principles in order to buy short-term results is a failure of your own goals. When you have a principle, like 'do not steal', it cannot be overridden because you have some end in mind that you think will benefit several other people who 'deserve it more'.
When you have a principle like democracy, Mr Premier, it cannot be overridden because you think the changes you want to happen will be better for those affected.
The basic principle of democracy, Mr Premier, is that people have a right to a say in how government affects their lives.
In March 2013, Mr Premier, people voted for your government with the clear assurance from you that there would be no forced amalgamations of local governments.
That is not to say there should be no amalgamations, but there was a statutory process for investigating and determining such proposals, including the right of the people affected to reject them - with criteria (majority of those voting, subject to 50% poll turnout) that in practice are quite difficult to achieve unless people feel really strongly about the issue - typical local government election turnout, even with postal voting, is around 30%.
This process, Mr Premier, you have said you intend to subvert by removing the provision from the Local Government Act.
Are you really so unsure of yourself and your proposals, Mr Premier, that you don't think you can get the support of 30% of the people affected (for a high 60% turnout)?
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Pyrrhic Victory
Thanks to CanningAccountability for this.
The Premier has opened the door to the City of Perth swallowing up the whole of the City of Vincent, but there's a catch.
The catch is that the two local governments have to agree. The City of Perth doesn't really want the residential areas of Vincent, preferring to cherry-pick the valuable real estate of the southern part. The City of Perth knows that Vincent Council is desperate not to be split with the northern part going to the City of Stirling.
No prizes for identifying who holds the whip hand in any negotiations. If the City of Vincent disappears in this scenario, it will be on terms dictated by the City of Perth.
No doubt Vincent Council will trumpet this as a victory - but at what a cost.
Vincent will be no more.
Vincent will become the unwanted residential rump of the City of Perth, to be hidden away and neglected as it was prior to 1994.
And if Perth and Vincent can't agree, Colin Barnett can claim that his original proposal has been justified.
How to get your way and blame everyone else.
Good one, Col!
The Premier has opened the door to the City of Perth swallowing up the whole of the City of Vincent, but there's a catch.
The catch is that the two local governments have to agree. The City of Perth doesn't really want the residential areas of Vincent, preferring to cherry-pick the valuable real estate of the southern part. The City of Perth knows that Vincent Council is desperate not to be split with the northern part going to the City of Stirling.
No prizes for identifying who holds the whip hand in any negotiations. If the City of Vincent disappears in this scenario, it will be on terms dictated by the City of Perth.
No doubt Vincent Council will trumpet this as a victory - but at what a cost.
Vincent will be no more.
Vincent will become the unwanted residential rump of the City of Perth, to be hidden away and neglected as it was prior to 1994.
And if Perth and Vincent can't agree, Colin Barnett can claim that his original proposal has been justified.
How to get your way and blame everyone else.
Good one, Col!
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
We All Have The Right To Be Heard - so, in the words of John Hyde, former Mayor of Vincent, "BE LOUD AND BE PROUD"
Equally important, the Board is required to consider all submissions and to have regard to:
- community of interests
- physical and topographical features
- demographic trends
- economic factors
- the history of the area
- transport and communication
- matters affecting the viability of local governments
- the effective delivery of local government services.
So the opportunity is there to make the Local Government Advisory Board fully (and painfully) aware of the strength of feeling about these ill-considered proposals. And the eight points above provide a simple template for expressing your views. I can see people having a field day in respect of community of interest (or, rather, lack thereof) for many of the proposed changes, such as splitting the Beaufort Street/Mt Lawley centre between three local governments.
Just be sure to state your name and address and the proposal on which you are commenting. Say whether you support the proposal or not (bureaucrats love to be able to simply add up Yeas and Nays) and then go on to make your comments. Feel free to attach any documents in support of your comments.
If you would like a pro forma to help you make your submission, email me at ian_ker2@hotmail.com and I will email a WORD document for you to complete in your own words.
You can email your submission to advisory.board@dlg.wa.gov.au, mail to the Local Government Advisory Board, GPO Box R1250, Perth, WA 6844 or deliver in person at Department of Local Government and Communities, Gordon Stephenson House, 140 William Street, Perth, WA 6000. Public access to Gordon Stephenson House is from the Murray Street Mall near the Perth Underground station, but you'll have to navigate around hoardings and building works.
Monday, August 12, 2013
More Sloppy Policy
Colin Barnett has announced a u-turn on the amount people with solar panels will get for electricity they put into the grid (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/18456332/cabinet-reverses-solar-tariff-decision). The cut, from 40 cents/unit to 20 cents/unit, will not now go ahead - because of all the backlash from the community and from members of his own party.
All this just hours after the Treasurer, Troy Buswell, was defending the cuts on the grounds of the broader public interest. It seems this government can't even get its act together when they get it right (in the end).
Now, just what sort of reaction did Barnett think he was going to get to a proposal that not only cut the amount people received in half but was also almost certainly illegal (a letter from Synergy sent in 2011 stated that customers would receive the 40 cents for the full term of their 10-year contract). Just what part of 'legally-binding contract' does his emperorness not understand?
Out of the three possible reasons for changing his mind (community outrage, pressure from government MPs or illegality), my money is on the second as being the key one.
So perhaps there is still hope for getting a better outcome for local government and local communities without resorting to forced amalgamations. Lobby Liberal/National Members of Parliament and if enough of them see some semblance of sense perhaps CB will make (yet another) u-turn.
All this just hours after the Treasurer, Troy Buswell, was defending the cuts on the grounds of the broader public interest. It seems this government can't even get its act together when they get it right (in the end).
Now, just what sort of reaction did Barnett think he was going to get to a proposal that not only cut the amount people received in half but was also almost certainly illegal (a letter from Synergy sent in 2011 stated that customers would receive the 40 cents for the full term of their 10-year contract). Just what part of 'legally-binding contract' does his emperorness not understand?
Out of the three possible reasons for changing his mind (community outrage, pressure from government MPs or illegality), my money is on the second as being the key one.
So perhaps there is still hope for getting a better outcome for local government and local communities without resorting to forced amalgamations. Lobby Liberal/National Members of Parliament and if enough of them see some semblance of sense perhaps CB will make (yet another) u-turn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
