Right On The Money, Ken.

Ken Travers was right on the money in the Legislative Council on Thursday.
Watch the video or read the transcript. Thanks to Jeremy Mowe for the link to the video.

Hon KEN TRAVERS: I remind those members on the other side who have spoken in the past about the importance of the Dadour provisions that the land we are talking about is the symbolic heartland of the Dadour provisions. It is the sliver of land that the government forgot.
Hon Adele Farina: That’s why they forgot it.
Hon KEN TRAVERS: The slither of land that the government forgot was the land that was the problem that created the Dadour provisions in the 1970s.
Hon Helen Morton: It’s not forgotten.
Hon KEN TRAVERS: Does the minister realise it is the Dadour land?
Hon Helen Morton: Not forgotten; not forgotten.
Hon KEN TRAVERS: The land that we are talking about goes along the City of Subiaco, past the hospital and around the university and is the very land that in the 1970s the City of Nedlands tried to take from the City of Subiaco, which led to the Dadour provisions being put into the Local Government Act over many years. It is the symbolic heartland of the Dadour provisions. What an absolute irony!
There is another argument that the government could take. If we were to accept the argument put forward by the minister today that it has always known about the slither of land, why would it then come up with a more complex way of doing what it is doing, rather than accept the way I outlined yesterday to accept the recommendation for the city of Riversea? There is one other conspiracy theory, and if the minister is correct that the government did not forget it and did it as a conscious act, then the conspiracy theory comes true.
That conspiracy theory is that if they had accepted the city of Riversea yesterday, the City of Subiaco would be entitled to seek a referendum under the Dadour provisions! The very spiritual land could have invoked the Dadour provisions to come to fruition. I wonder whether maybe we went for the option that those in the cabinet were stupid—maybe they are. Maybe it is a conspiracy to deny the people of Subiaco, who live in the land that created the Dadour provisions, the option of having the Dadour provisions on this occasion and that it is a grand conspiracy concocted by the Liberals—without the help of the National Party on this occasion, Hon Col Holt, I am glad to see. Maybe it is a conspiracy. But they are the choices—either the government forgot about it or, if the Minister for Mental Health is right in her protests this evening, it has engaged in a grand conspiracy to not have the creation of the city of Riversea so that the City of Subiaco can be abolished and it will deny the people of Subiaco their democratic rights under the 
Dadour provisions.
How ironic is it that the once great Liberal Party is now in the gutter, conspiring to get around the laws of this state in such an underhanded and devious way. I go back to my comments this morning that this is a case in which the government just forgot and did not get it. At the very least, if the Minister for Mental Health wants to prosecute her case, by all means go ahead, but all she raised in that case is the fact that the government is trying to deny the people of Subiaco, in the very land that created the Dadour provisions in the first place, the right to have access to the Dadour provisions.
Members may recall my final concluding words this morning: the Dadour provisions were created in the City of Subiaco and the people of Subiaco should have access to them. They should, as should everybody else in Western Australia. Instead, we have an underhanded, sneaky and devious government that cannot even do devious–sneaky well because of its complete dysfunction and chaos.

Petulant Premier

Colin Barnett accuses the Nationals, Labor and Greens of being 'silly' opposing legislation that they haven't seen. Whilst this might sound okay at first, Col really asked for this pre-emptive opposition by stating very clearly what would be in the legislation - including a gerrymander to protect the property and commercial interests of the CBD.

If Col would only listen to what people were saying, he would know this to be the case. Instead he reverts to schoolboy language and resorts to calling them silly - a meaningless term if I ever heard one.

Mind you, if Col had listened before now, he wouldn't have got himself into the chaotic mess he is now in the middle of.

Another Defeat For Col

How many times does Parliament have to tell Col Pot it opposes what he is doing to local government before he gets the message and does the correct thing and abandons his grand plans.

Yesterday, the Legislative Assembly passed the following motion:
That this house rejects the Barnett government's model for forced council amalgamations that does not allow the opportunity for a local vote of ratepayers in suburbs such as Willeton, Rivrton, Cannington, Belmont, Mundaring, Bassendean and Mt Lawley, and that the house further reject any attempts to implement forced amalgamations for regional councils.

This follows close on previous similar motions passed by the Legislative Assembly (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/cracks-becoming-chasms.html) and in the Legislative Council (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/more-cracks-and-not-just-in-facade.html).

As I have pointed out here before (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/constitutional-contravention.html), this is not just a matter of parliamentary and government protocol, it has now become a breach of the WA Constitution.

Gerrymander or Apartheid?

Col insists that an unequal ward structure doesn't constitute a gerrymander. Perhaps a better word would be apartheid, Col, like the South Africa of old where blacks and coloureds had representation but separate and vastly less than their numbers justified.

The South African parliament, from 1984 to 1994, had three separately elected chambers:

• A 178-member White House of Assembly, which was in effect the existing lower house of Parliament.
• An 85-member (Coloured) House of Representatives.
• A 45-member (Indian) House of Delegates.

The key difference is that in the case of South Africa this was an improvement in democratic representation but in the case of Perth and Vincent it would be a distinctly retrograde step.

More Support For Polls?

John McGrath, MLA for South Perth, "agree[s] with the decision to use the amalgamation provisions of the Local Government Act" for South Perth-Victoria Park.

Unfortunately, he is silent on the denial of that right to the majority of the people and communities affected by the proposed changes to local government.

I challenge John to be open and honest with the people of the Perth Metropolitan area and say whether he agrees with denying them access to the same poll provision that he endorses for his own electors.

For the record, I agree with him in being more than disappointed that the arrangement for Burswood might be reviewed in five years. Local government needs stability to be sustainable - and South Perth-Victoria Park definitely needs Burswood to be financially on a secure footing. The City of Perth doesn't need Burswood except to further inflate its already bloated ego.

You Won't Get This In The City Of Perth

Click to enlarge

TravelSmart is all about people. It's about giving people real travel alternatives to driving their cars and helping them to be aware of and to use those alternatives.

The City of Perth, with its CBD focus, is about what it sees as 'bigger' issues.

According to the City of Perth website, it's sole involvement with TravelSmart appears to be "the development and implementation of a workplace Green Transport Plan through the TravelSmart program" - an inward-looking corporate initiative rather than something that assists the people of Perth or visitors to Perth to travel more sustainably.

As one of the originators of TravelSmart in WA (and that means in the world - because TravelSmart started here and has been exported to other states of Australia and to overseas), I congratulate John Carey and the City of Vincent.

I look forward to continuing successful initiatives from the City of Vincent - and, yes, that does mean I expect the City of Vincent to survive.

Hats Off To The Nats, Too

Are integrity and principles making a comeback in WA politics?

On top of the Nationals opposing forced amalgamations in both Houses of the Parliament and John Day's supporting democracy, at least for Kalamunda (Come on John! Let us all have it!), Terry Redman has now stated unequivocally that the Nationals will not be supporting the Premier's proposed City of Perth legislation.

Typical Col, though - he is striving to convince himself that Labor and the Nationals will change their minds and he will get his way.

I wonder what sort of bullying he has in mind to make that happen?

Don't judge others by yourself, Col. It might just be that others have principles and will stick by them.

Well Done, John Day

Click to enlarge

It isn't often a Cabinet Minister, even in his other role as a local member, breaks ranks and criticises a government decision.

I congratulate John Day on standing up for his community (as reported in the West Australian - see right).

There can be legitimate and sincerely-held differences of view on the future of local government - but there should be no dissent from the democratic principle of communities having a say in how they are governed - as, indeed, the Local Government Act requires for amalgamations. The current process has, as Day highlights, evaded the democratic principle by using 'boundary adjustments' when the reality is an amalgamation. 

Click to enlarge

This is particularly pertinent for the Shire of Kalamunda, as the Local Government Advisory Board has not justified choosing the Belmont (boundary adjustment) proposal over the Kalamunda (amalgamation) proposal - despite their being otherwise identical. The only stated 'justification' is "greater organisational capacity to handle the merger process" - which an only mildly-cynical reader would interpret as the Belmont proposal towing the government line on 'boundary adjustment' rather than 'amalgamation'.

It is particularly relevant here that the Local Government Act, under which the local government reform process has, to-date, been proceeding, has as one of its objectives "greater community participation in the decisions and affairs of local governments" (section 2.4 (2) (b)). Surely, in choosing between two otherwise-similar proposals, the LGAB and the Minister should favour the one that gives the community a say.

There are other 'boundary adjustments' announced by the Premier and Minister Simpson yesterday that are also effectively amalgamations. These include Subiaco and Cambridge, Gosnells and Canning, Swan and Mundaring, Bayswater and Bassendean, Armadale and Serpentine-Jarrahdale, even though they may also involve some genuine boundary adjustments.

The case of the City of Vincent and City of Perth raises similar issues - the LGAB recommended the City of Vincent proposal (with minor modifications), which would have given electors the opportunity of calling for a poll. In proposing a separate City of Perth Act, the Premier has effectively removed this opportunity from the electors not only of Vincent but also of the City of Perth.

The Premier's City of Perth proposal raises another important issue of democracy, as he is clearly proposing that some electors be more equal than others. To make this ‘work’ on his terms, he will put a Bjelke-Peterson Queensland-style gerrymander in place to disenfranchise the people of Vincent - as he said last week, “you would not want residential voters to be able to control the central business district”.This is on top of the existing weighting that already allows a ‘body corporate’ to have two votes.

This would be a gross denial of democracy that I hope that John Day and other Members of our Parliament would strenuously oppose as being incompatible with our democratic society.

Col As Weaselly As Ever

Colin Barnett deigned to answer some questions on PerthNow this morning - which is more than he had the courtesy to do with the Mayors and CEOs yesterday.

He said: "we have made it very clear for the last three years that we intend to have special legislation for a capital city".

When, Premier, did you say there would be special legislation for a capital city? You certainly haven't mentioned it during the past 18 months - until a few days ago, when it became clear you weren't going to get your way through the LGAB?

If that was your intention all along, why did you not exclude the City of Perth from the LGAB process?

He said: "there's no forced amalgamation here. Vincent and the City of Perth want to come together, that's not a forced amalgamation, they agree".

There's forcing and forcing, Premier. Vincent only put in proposal because they were told that if they didn't you'd do it for them. Nearly 80% of Vincent voters in the plebiscite in October 2013 said Vincent should stay as it is.

The City of Perth, on the other hand, has consistently said it didn't want the whole of Vincent - which is why, of course, you are now proposing a gerrymander to placate Lisa Scaffidi.

He said: "There won't be vote weighting, but there may be a ward structure".

Can you guarantee that the wards will have equal ratios of elected members to electors? I thought not - after all, to quote your own words, "you would not want residential voters to be able to control the central business district". 

Sorry, Col. A gerrymander doesn't cease to be a gerrymander because of an unequal ward structure.

We Are Not Second-Class Citizens

There can be legitimate and sincerely-held differences of view on the relationship between Vincent and Perth - but there should be no dissent from the democratic principle of equal representation. I congratulate Vincent Mayor, John Carey, on his strong stand on this principle. I hope that Tony Simpson is able to stand up to Bully Barnett and deliver on his "guarantee of no vote-weighting in the new City of Perth".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-22/wa-government-announces-local-government-reform/5832900

The real question is that, if Vincent residents are such a problem, why merge Vincent and Perth at all. Even the part of Vincent that the City of Perth really wanted (for its key assets), still included a substantial number of residents.

Barnett, Scaffidi and the City of Perth need to understand that cities are nothing without people and that decisions of the City of Perth have a major impact on the residents of Vincent.

A large proportion of the car commuters to the City pound through Vincent twice a day, polluting the air and severing our town centres - and when Perth puts up the price of parking some of those commuters park for nothing in Vincent, clogging up our streets, and walk or get the bus into the city.

Confusion

Click to enlarge

Lots of apparent confusion about the Nationals intentions in relation to Col's proposed City of Perth Act, but the West has put it up front and centre . However, Terry Redman is still saying the Nats “'reserve our right' to take a position on any piece of legislation that may or may not come before the House".

As far as local councils and their communities are concerned, an Act of Parliament that does not include a right for them to have a say, consistent with the Local Government Act, is still a forced amalgamation.

The challenge is now to keep the Nationals to their commitment to oppose forced local government amalgamations, however they are proposed to be achieved.

Saving the Banks Precinct

Whatever happens in the legal action or with Barnett's proposed City of Perth Act, the Banks precinct will stay with the rest of Vincent.

The Minister has accepted the LGAB recommendation with respect to Bayswater that includes two changes to the Bayswater proposal in the Banks area:

1. Retention of the Banks precinct in the City of Vincent; and

2. Transferring land bounded by Ellesmere Street, Mitchell Street, Stanley Street and Guildford Road from Bayswater to the City of Vincent (see map, right). 

A small but important victory for common sense.

Eleni: Vincent Voters Are Two Thirds of Your Electors

I took the opportunity (sadly unlikely to get such opportunity under City of Perth, if that comes to pass) to speak to the City of Vincent Council last night, in advance of the 'closed door' briefing of Mayors, Presidents and CEOs. Text below.

At the time, I didn't know about the vote in the Lower House - but this simply reinforces what I said.

Twelve months ago, nearly four out of five people who voted in the Vincent plebiscite said Vincent should not be abolished.

I suggest that would have been five out of five if they had been told that merging with the City of Perth would make them second-class citizens.

And yet that is precisely what Colin Barnett is now proposing – in order to salvage something from the wreck of his local government so-called reform.

So fearful is he that the Supreme Court will declare the whole process invalid, that he is attempting to pre-empt the Court by saying he will introduce a City of Perth Act to get what he always wanted for the City of Perth – a capital city bloated with assets stolen from surrounding communities.

To make this ‘work’ on his terms, he will put a Bjelke-Peterson Queensland-style gerrymander in place to disenfranchise the people of Vincent. After all, as he said last week, “you would not want residential voters to be able to control the central business district”.

What a gross denial of democracy – simply to protect property and business interests in the Perth CBD. This is on top of the existing weighting that already allows a ‘body corporate’ to have two votes.

I urge you, Mr Mayor, to ‘maintain the rage’ (to use the words of the late Gough Whitlam)when you attend the ‘closed-door’ briefing tomorrow.

If the opportunity arises, I beg you to move a motion of no-confidence in the Premier for his anti-democratic stance.

But the Premier still has to get his Act through Parliament – and he has already had a defeat in the Upper House on forced amalgamations.

It's time (There are Gough's words again) to remind Eleni Evangel, MLA for Perth, that her electorate includes the City of Vincent as well as the City of Perth.

It's time to remind her that two-thirds of her electors are Vincent residents.

The people of Vincent will not forgive her at the 2017 election if she doesn’t vote against Barnett's latest denial of democracy - or better still persuade him to give up his latest imperial delusion.

We should be forcibly reminding state parliamentarians that the WA Electoral Act requires one-vote one-value for state electorates.

We should be forcibly reminding them that the Local Government Act requires "the ratio of councillors to electors" to be a key factor in the establishment of wards.

Most of all, we should be forcibly reminding them that to vote for Col’s gerrymander would be a gross dereliction of their democratic duty and would see them held to account at the next state election.

Weasel Words Again

Barnett says "reforms not intended as an attack on local government". Your nose is growing like Pinnocchio's, Col.

Breaking News: A Dog's Breakfast

The decisions on the LGAB recommendations are a total dog's breakfast.

Three amalgamations get a vote - but other straight mergers (eg Subiaco/Cambridge; Belmont/Kalamunda) are described as 'boundary changes' so no vote. Total inconsistency.

Simpson has given guarantee of no vote weighting in City of Perth/City of Vincent legislation. Wonder if he has checked this Barnett? If so, this is a huge backdown given Barnett's statement last week that "you wouldn't want residents to control the cbd".

According to the ABC, Barnett has said he will not move on the regions in this term of government. This sounds very like his pre-2013 election commitment of "no forced amalgamations" so if I were the Nationals I'd be even more worried than ever.

New Map of Local Government

New map according to Barnett and Simpson - thanks to Gareth Parker for tweeting this.

No real surprises here, but all a sideshow when the Supreme Court rules.

Constitutional Contravention

First the Legislative Council votes against Barnett on local government. Now the Legislative Assembly has done so. http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-21/wa-govt-loses-motion-over-local-council-amalgamations/5831462

The cracks are becoming veritable chasms (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/cracks-becoming-chasms.html).

Mark McGowan is quoted by the ABC as saying :"If the Government goes ahead with a plan that doesn't involve a local say, or does involve legislation without mandate, it is therefore defying the will of Parliament".

Barnett, in the Parliament yesterday, denied that this is so.

It is quite possible that the situation would actually be more dire for the Government than simply defying the will of Parliament as it becomes a constitutional issue.

The WA Constitution Act (Section 52 para 1) states:

52. Elected local governing bodies

(1) The Legislature shall maintain a system of local governing bodies elected and constituted in such manner as the Legislature may from time provide.

Whilst there is nothing in this preventing the delegation of this responsibility (as it has done through the Local Government Act, 1995), a similar resolution of both houses of the Parliament should be interpreted as constraining any such delegation.

Col Pot, Kettle and Black

We have come not to expect graciousness from Colin Barnett, but some of his comments on the late Gough Whitlam today sink to a new low.

As well as showing Colin's usual ungraciousness, his comments are a classic example of (Col) Pot calling Kettle Black.

Col says that Gough shouldn't be remembered as a great Prime Minister (despite saving him from having to go to fight in Vietnam) because:

- "A lot of the things he set out to do didn't really work". Well, Col, what about things like shark drum lines and local government so-called reform in your own backyard?

- "His grand spending programs didn't really come off". Well, Col, what about things like the Burswood Stadium, Elizabeth Quay and the Airport rail link that have cost WA its AAA credit rating?

- "He ended up with a government in chaos". Well, Col, he was only defeated in the Senate thanks to the bastardry of the Queensland and NSW premiers. You have been defeated in both Houses of the WA Parliament due to the dissatisfaction of members of your own party.

So, Col, perhaps you should think a little more carefully before criticising others.

Cracks Becoming Chasms

First Barnett had the numbers to emasculate an Opposition motion critical of the Barnett/Simpson local government so-called reform process in the Legislative Assembly (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/almost-but-not-quite.html).

Then he lost a similar motion on the voices in the Legislative Council, because he didn't dare put it to a formal vote, knowing that some Liberal MPs would cross the floor (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/more-cracks-and-not-just-in-facade.html).

And now, today, Barnett doesn't even have the numbers in the Legislative Assembly and is forced to allow a motion calling for a guarantee that local government amalgamations would not be forced to pass without a formal vote.

I congratulate those Liberal MLAs who have presumably made it clear to Col Pot that what he is doing is not acceptable in a democratic society.

Cracks become chasms and the imperial statue that Colin Barnett erected to himself is about to come toppling down - joining those of other dictators from Stalin to Saddam Hussein.

People Have The Power!

Misleading Parliament or Just Shafted By Barnett?

On 15th October, Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, stated, in response to a question from David Templeman, Labor spokesman on Local Government, that "The Premier is very happy with its [the Local Government Advisory Board's] recommendations - we had a long discussion about it - and cabinet as well".

Just two days later, Colin Barnett announced that he would introduce special legislation to get what he wanted for the City of Perth (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/more-sociopathic-behaviour-from-col-pot.html).

This raises an interesting question. Did Simpson mislead the Parliament in his answer to David Templeman's question or did Colin Barnett not tell Simpson, who is the Minister responsible for local government under Parliamentary statute, what he was intending to do?

The answer to one part or the other of this question must be 'yes'. In the first case, Simpson should resign. In the second, Barnett should resign.