This is the personal blog of Ian Ker, who was Councillor for the South Ward of the Town of Vincent from 1995 to 2009. I have been a resident of this area since 1985. This blog was originally conceived as a way of letting residents of Vincent know what I have been doing and sharing thoughts on important issues. I can now use it to sound off about things that concern me.
If you want to contact me, my e-mail is still ian_ker@hotmail.com or post a comment on this blog.
To post a comment on this blog, select the individual post on which you wish to comment, by clicking on the title in the post or in the list to the left of the blog, and scroll down to the 'Post a Comment' box at the foot.
Welcome to the 14 Mayors in the Council for Democracy group who are at last considering legal action. But the action has to be about more than the costs - Ken Travers had it right when he was speaking in the Legislative Council last week - it's about the legality of the process.
In his interview on the 7.30 Report on the ABC last night, Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, for the first time put a figure on the benefits of his proposed local government 'reform'. He said they would amount to $75 million over three years, with ongoing benefits after that.
Information Vacuum
What he didn't say was (a) how those benefits were calculated or (b) to what extent those benefits could be achieved by other means such as regional groupings of councils to provide shared services.
He didn't, however, come clean on the cost side, including who pays.
And those costs have to include the costs local governments and communities have already borne as a direct result of the confrontational, arbitrary and inconsistent process so far.
Now if the Minister would provide us with that sort of information we might be able to have a halfway-sensible debate about the pros and cons of the government's proposed forced amalgamations.
I have previously drawn attention on this blog to the extraordinary lack of information and justification in the Minister for Local Government's proposals for local government changes. It seems that this is fast becoming a characteristic of right-wing governments in Australia. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature has criticised the Abbott government's proposed removal of 74,000 hectares of Tasmanian forest from world heritage protection for providing 'relatively scant information' to support its case and said the way the boundaries had been drawn for the proposed excision appeared 'somewhat arbitrary'. Does that sound familiar? If governments of whatever political flavour don't do the hard work to present logical proposals and provide substantial justification for them, are they lazy, incompetent or simply ideologues in pursuit of their own agendas? Or all three?
Just as the old adage about conspiracy and stuff-up goes, perhaps it isn't necessary to invoke Josef Goebbels. Having made such a song and dance about local government 'reform', perhaps Barnett and Simpson simply find life empty and meaningless without it.
Local Government Minister, Tony 'Homer' Simpson, reminded Mayors that "there are just 13 months until the new local governments are created in metropolitan Perth". I'm not sure what planet Homer is on, although he keeps on saying 'will' - perhaps he believes the Josef Goebbel's argument that “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it". Whether we believe it or not, the rest of us should beware what Goebbels went on to say: "The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." Well, the economic consequences are becoming all too clear, with the miserly funding allocated in the WA Budget last week. Simpson continues talking with certainty despite the fact that the 'independent' Local Government Advisory Board has yet to report on the multitude of proposals before it. If the LGAB is truly independent, the possibility must exist that it will not recommend all or any of the proposals. Not holding my breath on that - but there is still the overwhelming community opposition that will see the Liberal/National parties lose government at the next election if they persist with forced amalgamations. And then there is the legal action that has been initiated………………… Lots of water to flow under lots of bridges yet, Minister.
Col Pot and Homer Simpson must be overjoyed at the latest response from local government mayors, predictably responding to the totally inadequate funding for amalgamations in the WA Budget last week. Anyone with any knowledge of local government or organisational change in general knows that the $15 million allocated by the State Government (or even the $60 million including loans) is totally inadequate. The inevitable result will be either that the changes are not implemented as well as they should be and/or ratepayers will be paying for the changes over many years to come. But the real issue here is that Mayors and Councils should have been resisting the process by which the Government has been trying to force changes on communities that do not want them. As Commissioner Lynton Reynolds said at a community meeting in Canning a few months ago, whatever his personal views on amalgamations he took an oath when appointed to represent the interests of the Canning community - community after community has clearly said it does not want the changes being forced on them by Col and Homer. It is ironic that it took a government-appointed Commissioner to say this while elected Mayors were largely silent and focussing on the details of proposed changes. Why has it taken the Mayors so long to wake up to this? And why, even now, are they focussing on the cost rather than the fundamental democratic principle that communities should have a say in how they are governed.
According to Local Government Minister, Tony (Homer) Simpson, the Local Government Advisory Board is currently considering 36 proposals.
Initially, 34 proposals, including 12 from the Minister himself, were submitted to the LGAB. As required by the Local Government Act, these were open for public submissions for a period of 6 weeks.
The other two proposals were late submissions - from the City of Subiaco and the City of Perth. Neither of these has been put out for submissions as required by the Act - therefore, they cannot be considered and assessed by the LGAB.
Perhaps Homer is getting ahead of himself. The Local Government Amendment Bill, which is currently in the Legislative Council, would, if passed, remove the requirement for the submission period for the current metropolitan 'reform' process - but this Bill has not yet been passed by the Parliament and, in any case, it does not contain retrospective provisions.
If the LGAB considers these two 'late' proposals in the context of the totality of proposals made to it. it will potentially invalidate the whole process.
I've been away travelling for a few weeks - hence the lack of posts on this blog. Now I'm back - and find that that not much seems to have changed - although the City of Perth seems to have identified yet more assets it wants to take over, with its bid for the prime commercial areas of Subiaco.
This is not unexpected, as the Minister simply deflects any questions by saying the matter is now with the LGAB for consideration. Looks like he hopes this period will allow community anger to die down - time to start proving him wrong!
I read with interest reports of the rally on the steps of Parliament House. The numbers were impressive - although, typically, the numbers reported in the West Australian were way below other estimates - even the West's own picture of just part of the crowd gives the lie to its estimate of 'hundreds'.
I was absolutely astounded, however, at the remarks by the Minister - who was reported as saying that those who attended were ill-informed or misinformed by Councils that had had their own agendas to pursue. Talk about pot calling kettle black - the Minister (and his master the Premier) have been masters of misinformation throughout this whole process.
There is a rally outside Parliament House at 7pm on Tuesday 8th April. The more people there, the stronger the message - but this is just the start.
Loud voices raised together in protest at Colin Barnett's denial of democracy will be needed if he is to hear us. In a slight rewriting of the 1964 civil rights protest song:
They destroy us without blinking They shot Vincent* in the back. Did you say it wasn't proper, Did you stand upon the track?
You were quiet just like mice,
Now you say we aren't nice,
And if that's Freedom's price,
We don't mind.
* Substitute your own community name as you wish.
Now is the time not to be quiet but to be heard - our own Eureka Stockade moment.
Emperor Col Pot is trying to force on us local governments that we do not want. Revolutions have been sparked by this type of imperial arrogance.
If we are denied the right to a say in how we are governed, those local governments will have no legitimacy. Perhaps it's time to start thinking about how each of us as individuals might respond if the worst comes to the worst.
All protest movements should have a song. I have already drawn attention to its being the 50th anniversary of the civil rights movement song "It Isn't Nice". Amazing how few changes to the words (highlighted below) are needed to make it current. Where I've put 'Vincent' in the second-last verse, you could put any of the 30 metropolitan local council names (except, probably, Serpentine-Jarrahdale, which is a bit long) - at a big rally, you could have people sing the council of their choice, which would be really powerful. Does anyone know a folkie who could record a passionate version for the present day protests about forced local government amalgamations?
It isn't nice to block
the doorway,
It isn't nice to go to jail,
There are nicer ways to do it,
But the nice ways always fail.
It isn't nice, it isn't nice,
You told us once, you told us twice,
But if that's Freedom's price,
We don't mind.
It isn't nice to carry
banners
Or to sit in on the floor,
Or to shout our cry of Freedom
At the parliamentary store.
It isn't nice, it isn't nice,
You told us once, you told us twice,
But if that's Freedom's price,
We don't mind.
Now we tried
negotiations
And the token picket line,
Mr. Barnett didn't
see us
And he might as well be blind.
When you deal with men of ice,
You can’t deal in ways so nice
But if that's
Freedom's price,
We don't mind.
Theydestroyuswithoutblinking
They shot Vincent in the back.
Did you say it wasn't
proper,
Did you stand upon the track?
You were quiet just like mice,
Now you say we aren't nice,
And if that's Freedom's price,
We don't mind.
It isn't nice to block
the doorway,
It isn't nice to go to jail,
There are nicer ways to do it
But the nice ways always fail.
It isn't nice, it isn't nice,
But thank you Colin for your advice,
‘Cos if that’s Freedom's price,
We don't mind.
Western Australia has 59 members of the Legislative Assembly, one for every 42,000 people. Forty-two of these represent electorates in the Perth Metropolitan Area - 40% more than there are local governments, currently, and nearly three times as many as the number of local governments proposed by Messrs Barnett and Simpson.
This is confusing for local governments and their communities. Some have to share an MLA with neighbouring communities and others have more than one MLA to represent them, but only in conjunction with other local governments/ communities that are also part of their electorates.
It is also unfair on local communities, as few, if any, have the undivided attention of any single MLA, and unfair on MLAs who have to balance the sometimes-competing demands of different communities they represent.
So, Mr Premier, what if we were to reduce, or even remove, this confusion and unfairness, by aligning Legislative Assembly electorate boundaries with local government boundaries - then we could reduce the number of metropolitan MLAs from 42 to 30 (currently) or even to 15 (with your proposals).
Country electorates would, of course, remain unchanged, Mr Premier, as we wouldn't want to upset your coalition partners - just as you have exempted them from the unfair and discriminatory provisions of the Local Government Amendment Bill currently before the Legislative Council in order to buy their acquiescence in this appalling attempt to promote your ideological agenda.
So then we would end up with 47 or 32 MLAs.
Would this be a good or a bad thing? I really don't know, Mr Premier, but then you haven't given us any evidence that you know about whether reducing the number of metropolitan local governments to an arbitrary 50% of their current number is a good thing or not. All you have done is assert, without providing evidence, that it is a good thing.
I suspect the outcome would be that the business of the Executive would be streamlined and simplified but that MLAs would be less connected to the communities they are required to represent. Whether this is good or bad probably depends on whether you are a member of the Executive (the WA Cabinet currently has 17 members) or the community (around 2.5 million).
Weight of numbers might be against you, Mr Premier.
Why am I poking my nose into government business, you might ask. The answer, friends, lies in the words of Woody Guthrie, sung by his son, Arlo Guthrie at 3:10 in the video below.
For those without the time or inclination to listen, here are the words: As I was walkin' - I saw a sign there And that sign said - no tress passin' But on the other side .... it didn't say nothin! Now that side was made for you and me! Democracy and government belong to each of us and all of us. For governments to exclude us from the process is the antithesis of democracy.
Really pleased (and proud) to get the second position (after the continuing saga of the search for Malaysian Airlines flight MH370) on the ABC News tonight.
More important, though, was the serious reporting of a serious issue.
The current form of local government so-called reform proposals has arisen entirely because Colin Barnett couldn't get removal of the Dadour poll provision through his own party room. Where are all those Liberal Members of Parliament now? With a few notable exceptions they have been silent about the Emperor's seeking to achieve by deceit what he couldn't achieve by argument and logic.
In 1964, Malvina Reynolds wrote the song "It Isn't Nice". Written about the US civil rights movement, the words have always resonated with me and could be the reason I'm so angry about the injustice of the Barnett/Simpson bullying of local governments and communities.
This Judy Collins version (recorded in concert at Town Hall, New York, March 21, 1964) was on one of the first 'serious' vinyl LPs I bought when I went to university - and I still have it - and a turntable to play it on.
It Isn't Nice
Notes: words and music by Malvina Reynolds; copyright 1964 Schroder Music Company, renewed 1993. This original version of the song was banned from the radio in Japan--in Japanese, but not in English!
It isn't nice to block the doorway,
It isn't nice to go to jail,
There are nicer ways to do it,
But the nice ways always fail.
It isn't nice, it isn't nice,
You told us once, you told us twice,
But if that is Freedom's price,
We don't mind.
It isn't nice to carry banners
Or to sit in on the floor,
Or to shout our cry of Freedom
At the hotel and the store.
It isn't nice, it isn't nice,
You told us once, you told us twice,
But if that is Freedom's price,
We don't mind.
We have tried negotiations
And the three-man picket line,
Mr. Charlie didn't see us
And he might as well be blind.
Now our new ways aren't nice
When we deal with men of ice,
But if that is Freedom's price,
We don't mind.
How about those years of lynchings
And they shot Medgar in the back?
Did you say it wasn't proper,
Did you stand upon the track?
You were quiet just like mice,
Now you say we aren't nice,
And if that is Freedom's price,
We don't mind.
It isn't nice to block the doorway,
It isn't nice to go to jail,
There are nicer ways to do it
But the nice ways always fail.
It isn't nice, it isn't nice,
But thanks for your advice,
Cause if that is Freedom's price,
We don't mind.
I wouldn't expect Colin Barnett, at this stage, to say anything other than that he didn't think a legal challenge would succeed. It will be interesting to see whether he or Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, feel the same after viewing the basis for challenge.
And his urging local government 'to look forward rather than back' sounds awfully like yet more bullying - I have heard that local councils have been threatened that if they resist forced amalgamations the Minister would appoint Commissioners and dismiss Councils. Local Governments should not fall for this bluff - the Local Government Act provides for commissioners to be appointed only under certain very specific circumstances (paras 2.6(4), 2.36A(3), 2.37(4), 8.30 and 8.33) none of which could possibly apply in these circumstances.
It is not my wish to take this all the way to litigation, but if that's what it takes, if Barnett and Simpson are determined to destroy democratic processes in this state, so be it.
Good to see the state Opposition waking up, as they have been conspicuously missing in action so far.
Great letter from Margaret Cala. The only thing I'd say is that one wakes from dreams and nightmares - if we don't demolish Barnett/Simpson's house of cards, the only respite we get will be when we are asleep.
My thanks to Cr Mel Congerton, Chair of the Local Government Advisory Board, who phoned me in response to an email I sent him about the conflict of interest issue. He assured me that the Board was operating entirely in accordance with Schedule 2.5, cl 8, para 7 of the Local Government Act (which states: (7) Subject to any order under subclause (8), a member is disqualified from acting where the matter being considered or inquired into by the Advisory Board is a matter relating to a local government of which the member is a member, employee or elector.) and that no Board members had participated in deliberations or consultations affecting an area where the member is an elected member, employee or elector. I was less reassured by what he said in respect of the systematic conflict of interest of the Board member and deputy who represent the Department of Local Government and Communities, which he said was dealt with in the Act. However, I have been unable to find any such provision in the Act. Cr Congerton promised to email the reference to me - watch this blog for updates. When you look at the Local Government Act, it might also be that the Chair of the LGAB also has a systematic conflict of interest with respect to the Minister's proposals (and other proposals that complement or conflict with them) as the Chair is appointed solely on the nomination of the Minister. As I have previously stated in this blog ('Conflicts of Interest?'), in drawing attention to this, I am not in any way implying any lack of integrity in any of the members of the LGAB. I am merely drawing attention to clear conflicts of interest and expressing the hope that these will be dealt with in the same open and transparent way as is required of local governments themselves.
In his second reading speech on the Local Government Amendment Bill, currently before the Legislative Council, the Minister for Local Government said: As a result of the planned metropolitan reforms, the Advisory Board will soon be required to deal with a large number of proposals relating to local government reform. The Bill will provide the Board with the ability to hold combined inquiries where two or more proposals are related.
This is contained in section 12 of the Bill, which introduces a new clause 4A to Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act, 1995.
This implies that the LGAB does not currently have the ability to hold combined inquiries and, since the Bill is still in the Parliament and there is no provision for this to be retroactive, the 34 proposals currently before the Board will have to be dealt with individually. This will make it virtually impossible for the Board to consider any but the Minister's proposals, as most others are not mutually compatible, having inconsistencies and overlaps - and if the Board were to make a recommendation on one of them it would have implications in terms of judging others.
Does this mean that the LGAB could dismiss most, if not all, of the non-Ministerial proposals on the grounds that it does not have the legal ability to consider them properly?
If so, has the LGAB been negligent or in breach of the Act in accepting these proposals for consideration?
Col Pot and Homer Simpson must be overjoyed at the latest response from local government mayors, predictably responding to the totally inadequate funding for amalgamations in the WA Budget last week.
According to Local Government Minister, Tony (Homer) Simpson, the Local Government Advisory Board is currently considering 36 proposals.
This is not unexpected, as the Minister simply deflects any questions by saying the matter is now with the LGAB for consideration. Looks like he hopes this period will allow community anger to die down - time to start proving him wrong!
.tiff)