Out Of The Mouths Of (Not Babes But) Ministers

In Parliament today, Tony Simpson admitted that the Local Government Advisory Board is conducting a single inquiry into the proposals for local government so-called reform. He said that the board was now looking at the bigger picture, not the detail of new boundaries and that "To put the report together... the whole five board members have to sit down as a board and review the whole package".

Just to clarify - the Local Government Advisory Board does not have the ability to combine inquiries into multiple proposals into a single proposal. This ability was included in the Local Government Amendment Bill that is dead in the water in the Legislative Council.

Simpson also gives the game away when he said that the change would have little impact "because most of the boundaries have already been decided".

Minister, it is not the role of the LGAB to decide boundaries; it is the role of the LGAB to recommend either in favour of or against proposals that have been submitted to it. It is the Minister who (God help us!) then decides whether to accept or reject the Board's recommendations.

Yet again, Homer has demonstrated that he does not understand the process for which he is responsible. Little wonder the process is such a shambles - and will, I am confident, be declared so by the courts.

Front-Page News

Front page in the Western Suburbs Weekly and page three in the Guardian Express - no 'funny' remarks about page 3 (a la the UK Sun) please.

Not at all sure I like the 'anti-reform' tag in the GE, though - this is not about being pro- or anti-reform, it's about doing things properly and not perverting the law to achieve your own ends.

Yet More Ministerial Chicanery

As readers of this blog will be aware, there are major and systematic conflicts of interests among the members of the Local Government Advisory Board in respect of the Ministerial proposals for local government so-called reform (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/conflicts-of-interest.html and http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/thanks-to-chair-of-lgab.html).

So now, in his latest act of bastardry, Homer has used his ministerial powers to say that for the current metropolitan process such conflicts of interest don't matter.

He might well be right that all five members of the LGAB need to be able to  participate across the board - but that is because he is using the LGAB to perform a function it was not designed to do.

The LGAB was designed to deal with individual proposals for changes involving a small number of local governments. The Minister is forcing it to deal with a grand metropolitan plan for the total reorganisation of local government. This plan is so far-reaching and fundamental that the Minister should have the courage of his convictions and deal with through the Parliamentary process - not put the LGAB and its members in an impossible position.

The Prize for Weasel Word of the Week

The report card on Colin Barnett's election promises is not looking very good.

That's even without considering the broken promise NOT to do something - the promise NOT to force amalgamations of local governments!

It seems Col has also found another weasel word - one he seems to have discovered in the process of trying to force local government amalgamations - adjustments.

Now, just as local governments are not amalgamated but 'adjusted', so promises are not broken but 'adjusted'.

The prize for weasel word of the week goes to … drum roll … Colin Barnett.

Sorry Folks! It has been pointed out to me that it was in the list in the printed West Australian - see below. But that doesn't change the validity of the weasel word award for Col Pot.

The West Australian, 9th June 2014

Don't Quite Know What To Make Of This

The Department of Local Government and Communities has changed the pictures at the top of its weekly 'Local Government Reform Update'. The lefthand and centre pictures are now from the City of Vincent.

Does this mean that the Department (and, by extension, its Minister) consider that Vincent has done such a good job that our achievements should be highlighted? If so, why are they so keen to get rid of the City of Vincent?

More likely, someone just thought these looked 'good' pictures, without having a clue where they were taken - but that doesn't change the fact that they did think them worth featuring. I just hope that no-one takes it to mean that Vincent supports the so-called reform process.

The picture on the right is several years old, taken when the BHP Billiton building was under construction and before work started on destroying the Esplanade for Elizabeth Quay. A picture taken today would show a blank spot and heaps of sand behind the cyclist.

Good Reason for an Australian Republic?

If true (and many of these things on the internet are not), surely this would make an overwhelming case for replacing the monarchy by an Australian republic.

Only kidding (I think) but a bit of light relief is needed every now and then.

Mind you, it would be nice if our Head of State had an ethical approach to investing her great wealth - be a good counterpoint to our Head of Government's lack of environmental or social ethics.

Subi Post Gets It Wrong

Subiaco Post

I have had my differences with the City of Vincent during this difficult and flawed local government so-called reform process, but I have always been able to maintain a constructive relationship with Mayor John Carey and his Council.

I was more than surprised, therefore, to see this item in the Subiaco Post this weekend, which implies that Vincent has eyes on part of Subiaco.

I contacted John Carey and was assured, as I was sure was the case, that at no time had Vincent made any proposal to incorporate or even affect any part of Subiaco. 

I have contacted the Subiaco Post to point out its error and ask that a correction be published in the next print edition but more immediately on their website and digital edition, in the interests of truth and good relations between Councils, which is especially important given the current threats to local government in Perth.

Not that Cambridge or Perth seem very keen on good relations between Councils, but that's another story.

Shame on the West Australian

The West Australian, 7th June 2014

Just three short paragraphs, buried at the fold on an inside page, is all the West Australian could manage to write about what is probably the most significant local council decision made for a long time. I couldn't even find it on their website!

Subiaco Council, after long and careful deliberation, took the historic decision to resort to legal action to counter the bullying and intimidation of Barnett and Simpson over their local government so-called reform.

Congratulations to Mayor and Councillors at Subiaco, and also to their CEO, all of whom deserve much more credit than the West Australian gives them for having the courage to stand up against the bully-boys masquerading as the Premier and Local Government Minister of WA.

I know of several other Councils that are considering legal action.

Talking and appeasement have not achieved anything other than setting council against council, while the bully-boys look on gleefully. I have written, through my lawyers, to the Local Government Advisory Board and to the Minister seeking some reasonable discussion of what even the Minister has admitted has been a flawed process - only to receive dismissive and patronising responses.

The time for talking is past. It's time for action

South Perth Pulls The Pin

And, to mix metaphors, the Barnett/Simpson house of cards starts to collapse.

As stated in the previous post on this blog (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/shame-on-town-of-cambridge.html), it is premature to start talking about implementation of local government changes until we actually know what those changes, if any, will be.

I believe this will be first of many withdrawals from the process. This will be on the agenda at the City of Vincent Special Meeting of Electors on Monday 9th June and I believe it will be at a similar meeting in Victoria Park (date yet to be set, but will have to be before early-July). The Town of Victoria Park Mayor might have to reconsider his comment after that.

I do believe that the Southern Gazette's headline is misleading, though, as my reading of the City of South Perth decision is that it is more about the process by which so-called reform is being forced on local governments than about whether reform might be beneficial.

This is where the WA Government got it so wrong. At no time has it set out what its so-called reform is meant to achieve, other than a reduction in the number of metropolitan local governments. Nor has it demonstrated what such 'reform' would cost nor the benefits that would be achieved by it. In the absence of any form of supporting analysis of costs and benefits, Barnett and Simpson have resorted to threats and bullying to try to achieve its objective - more and more people and local councils are now seeing this for what it is - sociopathy in action.

Shame on the Town of Cambridge

Western Suburbs Gazette, 1 June 2014

Shame on the Town of Cambridge - not only for ignoring the City of Subiaco but for spending ratepayers' money on what is quite likely not to happen. Given that there is more than one proposal (with major differences between them) affecting each of Cambridge and Subiaco, it is pointless even thinking about matters relating to wards and councillor numbers unless and until a decision has been made on which is to come about.

The whole Local Implementation Committee process being forced on local governments is premature and, given the range of possibilities (including staying as they are) facing most local governments, much of the effort and resources being put into them will be wasted.

For once, I agree with the City of Perth, which has refused to form an LIC with Vincent on the grounds that it does not know what it is that is to be implemented.

Unrest Is Spreading - and Consolidating

More and more, the voices of the community are being raised in outrage against the bully-boy approach of Barnett and Simpson. These voices are also becoming better organised - as are the voices of at least some of the Mayors and Councils who now see the whole so-called reform process for what it really is - a cynical exercise in centralising power to the benefit of development interests and the detriment of people and communities.

People Have The Power

The Communities Action Alliance is a reminder to me and, I hope, to others that there are people who care and are willing to do something about issues they believe are important.

Some people know that I am a great fan of 1960s protest songs, but I just came across a song from 1988 that says things to me about how this issue has galvanised people into action and re-awoken the belief that "People Have The Power".

Performed by Patti Smith

Sample lyrics below. I particularly like the lines about "the power to dream, to rule/to wrestle the earth from fools". And notice how the chorus morphs from 'people have the power' to 'we have the power' - powerful stuff.

Well I was dreamin' in my dreamin'
God knows a pure view
As I lay down into my sleepin'
And I commit my dream with you

People have the power
People have the power
People have the power
People have the power

The power to dream, to rule
To wrestle the earth from fools
But it's decreed the people rule
But it's decreed the people rule

Listen, I believe everythin' we dream
Can come to pass through our union
We can turn the world around
We can turn the earth's revolution

We have the power
People have the power
People have the power
People have the power

The power to dream, to rule
To wrestle the earth from fools
But it's decreed the people rule
But it's decreed the people rule

We have the power
We have the power
People have the power
We have the power

Writer(s): Fred Smith, Patti Smith
Copyright: Druse Music Inc., Stratium Music Inc.

Community Stirring Highlights Minister's Lack of Understanding

Congratulations to the Communities Action Alliance for mixing it with the Minister and then getting out there into the media world. The third paragraph of their media release raises some very important and disturbing questions:

1. Why did the Minister initiate local government change proposals without a business case or, at the very least, a clear indication of their costs and benefits?

2. How can the Local Government Advisory Board make a reasonable assessment of amalgamation proposals if the proponent has not provided a business case?

3. How can the Local Government Advisory Board make recommendations on proposals if it does not look at costs and benefits during the assessment process?

These questions are disturbing because the words from the Minister's own lips call into question the legality, as well as the morality, of the Government's whole process.

Our Opportunity To Have Our Say

After being talked down to so far in the amalgamation process, we now have an opportunity to say what we think - at the Special Meeting of Electors being held on Monday 9th June at 6pm.

This meeting was called by concerned electors, not by Vincent Council, but thanks are due to Mayor John Carey for scheduling this meeting sooner than the 35 days from receipt of the petition specified in the Local Government Act.

There will be an opportunity to move motions that, if passed at the meeting, must be considered by Council at its next meeting.

Some Evidence For Once

Thanks to Jeremy Mowe for drawing attention to a report ('Getting It Right: Structural Change in Perth Local Government') commissioned by the City of Subiaco by one of Australia's leading academics in the field of local government amalgamation.

http://subiaco.wa.gov.au/CityofSubiaco/media/City-of-Subiaco/Your-council/Local%20government%20reform/Getting-It-Right-Structural-Change-in-Perth-Local-Government-May-2014.pdf

The report concluded:

By far the main lesson which has emerged from this analysis is the fact that the processes underpinning amalgamation have a decisive effect on whether or not it has proven successful. In essence, where council mergers and boundary changes are forced upon local communities with minimal consultation and limited local community participation, this leads to ongoing bitterness and division in the affected local communities, which could have lasting effects, including ultimate de-amalgamation. 

Under the Local Government Act 1995, in Western Australia the LGAB is required to examine amalgamation/boundary change proposals in terms of nine criteria: ‘community of interests’;’ physical and topographic features’; demographic trends’; ‘economic factors’; ‘history of the area’; ‘transport and communications’; ‘matters affecting the viability of local governments’; the ‘effective delivery of services’; and ‘any other matters it considers relevant’. However, in the light of hard-won experience in other Australian local government systems which have had ill-conceived and expensive council amalgamations and – in some instances – de-amalgamations, it is evident that the LGAB criteria are not adequate. …the LGAB should also take into account additional criteria, including that proposed amalgamations must enjoy demonstrated local community backing through a poll, the transaction and transformation costs of amalgamation must be minimised, and potential sources of conflict must be eliminated as far as possible. 

Some interesting quotes from that report.

The most important of these policy lessons centres on demonstrating through polls, referenda, and other formal measures that strong support exists in affected local communities for any amalgamation proposal. If mergers are forced upon local communities, then amalgamation can fail with disastrous consequences. 

The bulk of empirical literature is decidedly sceptical on the efficacy of compulsory amalgamation in improving the performance of local government.

The claimed scale economies, cost savings and other pecuniary benefits purportedly flowing from amalgamations are largely illusory, with cost savings attached to only two of the ten main local government functions.

Hasty and poorly planned amalgamations, which do not involve adequate consultation, will result in poor outcomes and disaffected communities.

Well-organised grassroots campaigns can achieve significant outcomes, such as de-amalgamation.

Local residents everywhere resent having compulsory council consolidation forced upon them. People value ‘local voice’ and ‘local choice’ and are thus naturally unhappy when higher tiers of government arbitrarily impose forced amalgamation upon their communities.

A successful amalgamation (Onkaparinga in South Australia) ‘did not involve a significant overall reduction in councillor numbers, with the new council having 20 councillors initially in nine wards and a popularly elected Mayor’, and the result was ‘little change in the level of representation’. 

Given the astonishing ‘about face’ (on forced amalgamations) by the Queensland Government, the speed with which the Reform Commission process was completed, and the concomitantly constrained opportunities for community consultation, it is hardly surprising that the forced amalgamation program provoked a wave of public disquiet. 

Empirical evidence paints a depressing picture … pre-and post-amalgamation scale economies in Queensland showed that the compulsory merger program had increased the proportion of Queensland residents in councils operating with diseconomies of scale to 84%. Similarly, a Queensland Treasury Corporation analysis of the costs of amalgamation showed that the process had been far more costly than expected.

Structural change processes can have decisive positive effects, provided they are inclusive, participatory and voluntary. 

Policy makers should be mindful that amalgamating small councils (or parts of councils) with much larger and potentially dominant councils is likely to provoke political resistance to a merger from smaller neighbours, whose residents naturally fear ‘domination’ by the larger council. 

State governments would be wise to only support a proposed amalgamation and attendant boundary changes if it enjoyed a demonstrated degree of political support in the affected local communities prior to petitions and referenda. 

When Is A Forced Amalgamation Not A Forced Amalgamation?

At the 8th April rally, Opposition Leader Mark McGowan quoted Colin Barnett's assurance that his government would not force amalgamations of local governments.

There has been much argument about whether the WA Government so-called local government reform proposals are 'forced amalgamations' and hence in contravention of the promise made by Colin Barnett before the last election.

Most of this has focussed on the 'forced' part, which the proposals, with the exception of that for the Western Suburbs, clearly are.

Col Pot and Homer have vehemently denied that their proposals are 'forced amalgamations' but have rarely, if ever, clarified why this is so.

Could it be that they are relying on their own descriptions in 11 of the 12 proposals, that they consist of 'boundary adjustments' with 'just' one Council being 'abolished' - no mention here of 'amalgamation'. although that is the clear outcome.

For example, the Government proposal for Perth/Vincent should be:
- boundary adjustment to Perth (UWA, QEII and surrounds; Burswood);
- boundary adjustment to Vincent (loss of riverside Banks area); and
- amalgamation of the adjusted Perth and Vincent Councils.

This correct description would trigger the Dadour poll provision - and that is what scares Barnett and Simpson.

Maintain The Rage

It's a long fight - and can be difficult to sustain the energy necessary to support the outrage. For those who are finding it difficult to maintain the rage - and for the rest of us, too - I offer Ike Nielson's video of the 8th April rally outside Parliament House.

For me, it's a reminder of what I missed (I was overseas when the rally was held) and confirmation of the outrage felt - then and now - by so many.

Literary Condemnation

It isn't often that the immortal bard (William Shakespeare) is deliberately misquoted to great effect in a newspaper headline, but the Post Newspaper has certainly pulled it off this week - perhaps even better than the Editor thought, if you read the full quotation from Hamlet.

The full quotation is of the Ghost, commenting on his own death:
Murder most foul as in the best it is
But this most foul, strange and unnatural

There is, indeed, something most strange and unnatural about the combined obsession of Messrs Barnett and Simpson with their local government so-called reform.

Out of the Mouths of Babes?

Well, I doubt that anyone has ever called Rob Johnson, the disaffected Liberal MLA for Hillarys, a babe, but he does have a reputation for calling a spade a bloody shovel these days, without fear or favour for the party of which he is a member.

Here's the latest - from the Budget debate.
The government has taken measures in some areas to try to rein in expenditure, yet it is still spending tens of millions of dollars in non-essential areas. One of those areas is, of course, the forced amalgamations of metropolitan local governments. There are two things to consider here. The first is: can we afford to allocate tens of millions of dollars at this time, when we are in such a serious financial position, to something that neither the public nor, indeed, the local councils, have called for and in fact were promised would never happen? 

Distrust and Cynicism Will Be Your Real Legacy, Minister

Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, is surely indulging in wishful thinking when he says that 'local government reform will be his legacy'.

Whether or not he manages to bully his changes through, his legacy will be increased distrust of politicians (and their promises) and, to the detriment of all of us, a future of politicians perverting legal and political processes to suit their ideological agendas.

Guardian Express, 20th May 2014