Thought of the Day - Drunk With Power

http://worldstreets.wordpress.com/

It isn't only the Dadour Group (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Dadour-Group/1480813872146428) that is extremely concerned about the parlous state of democracy. As Eric Britton, Editor of the 'World Streets' website (sub-title: The Politics of Transport in Cities - http://worldstreets.wordpress.com/2014/10/25/op-ed-political-behaviour-is-largely-non-rational) writes:

"It is not easy to find a direct economic explanation of the behaviour of the people who now rule the world. The desire for pure power seems to be much more dominant than the desire for wealth. This has often been pointed out, but curiously enough the desire for power seems to be taken for granted as a natural instinct, equally prevalent in all ages, like the desire for food. Actually it is no more natural, in the sense of being biologically necessary, than drunkenness or gambling."

I guess, Eric, that's why we talk of people being 'drunk with power'.

He went on to say:

"And if it has reached new levels of lunacy in our own age, as I think it has, then the question becomes: What is the special quality in modern life that makes a major human motive out of the impulse to bully others? If we could answer that question - seldom asked, never followed up - there might occasionally be a bit of good news on the front page of your morning paper."

I'd add that the modern idiom of power is essentially self-defeating in a two-person game in which power changes periodically for reasons beyond the control of those 'in power'. If both players adopt the same approach, each change results in the new powerful overturning the decisions/actions of the previous one but going further in the opposite direction to make it more difficult for their own powerplays to be reversed in turn.

And the loser is - all of us.

More Cracks Appearing

Hot on the heels of John Day's calling for his electors in Kalamunda and Mundaring to be given the right to a poll (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/well-done-john-day.html) comes Mundaring Shire President, Helen Dullard, saying:

"Our position has always been to remain as is…"

"If forced to merge, amalgamation allowed for a fairer process with both Councils abolished (not just Mundaring), a new Council being elected by the whole district, and the community having the right to a poll".

Dullard actually goes further than Day by saying that amalgamation is the 'fairer process' and not just because it give electors the right to a poll.

This is even more illuminating than Day's statement, as Helen Dullard is a member of the Local Government Advisory Board that made the recommendations and that could, if it wished, have amended the proposal it accepted to define it as amalgamation.

Since the Minister's declaration that conflicts of interest did not apply in the LGAB metropolitan reform process came well before completion of the LGAB's assessments, she was able to mount these arguments but presumably was unable to convince more than one other member.*

* A recommendation of the LGAB requires an absolute majority. Since the LGAB has five members, that means three needed to vote for each recommendation.

Community Outrage

Photo: Brian Baynham

About 200 people from across the Perth area gave up much of a sunny Sunday afternoon and came together in Cottesloe yesterday (Sunday 26th October) to take part in a forum on local government so-called reform.

The forum passed, unanimously, three resolutions:

1. That the Premier and the Minister for Local Government be condemned for the chaos, uncertainty and waste of time and money that their pursuit of this reform agenda has created in our councils and local communities.

2. That the Minister for Local Government immediately make available the cost savings to be achieved through amalgamations and boundary changes and the costs to taxpayers and ratepayers of them.

3. That the meeting thank John Day, MLA, for his call for his electors in Kalamunda to be given the opportunity for a poll and asks that all electors in all council areas affected by the proposed changes are allowed to vote on these amalgamations and boundary changes.

Does The LGAB Know What It's Talking About?

Answer: No, if its 'analysis' of newspaper coverage for Vincent/Perth, under community of interest, is anything to go by (p108 of the LGAB report).

If I were the editor or staff of the Perth Voice, I'd be well and truly miffed at the obvious omission.

Pure Sophistry

The latest statement from Homer about why 'boundary adjustment' or 'amalgamation' almost beggars belief.

Whilst it is true that the Minister can only accept or reject the recommendations of the Local Government Advisory Board - although that doesn't apparently prevent his rejecting and then going ahead with something more to his liking, as with the proposed City of Perth Act - the LGAB can and should look at things rather more closely.

The issue should be judged, not on what the proponent describes it as but on what the actual effect is.

If I decide to bludgeon a neighbour to death without provocation, it matters not that I might describe it as an action to give me 'lebensraum' (boundary adjustment).

No! The LGAB should have looked at each proposal and described it in its recommendation as amalgamation if that was the effective outcome. Instead, the LGAB seems to have fallen for the fallacious argument that one Council is better placed to manage the transition than the other - when the resources of both Councils will be required and will be available with either approach.

So the LGAB, as well as the Minister, is guilt of engaging in sophistry to the detriment of the rights of electors and the principles of democracy.

Even worse, where there are two very similar proposals (eg Belmont-Kalamunda; Swan-Mundaring), the LGAB has recommended the one that doesn't give electors the opportunity for a vote - despite the Local Government Act, under which the LGAB operates, having as one of its stated objectives "greater community participation in the decisions and affairs of local governments". Given this, surely the LGAB should have recommended the proposal that gave electors the opportunity of a vote.

Alternatively, it could have amended the proposal, where appropriate, to ensure that opportunity was provided.

Given the Minister's timelines and process, 'boundary adjustment' totally disenfranchises the electors of the abolished local government for the initial period of the new local governments (July-October 2015) and puts sitting councillors of the 'continuing' local government in an unfairly advantageous position when it comes to the October 2015 elections - especially where no wards are proposed.

WA Stink

The headline writers are really getting into the swing of things now - and this all helps to grab the attention of people who are time-poor or have short attention spans.

The Perth Voice picked up on my description of Barnett's City of Perth Act as a 'Bjelke Peterson Queensland-style gerrymander'.

The Post harks back to a specifically-WA time of infamy, known as WA Inc, with the term 'WA Stink'. There certainly is a stink about this whole local government so-called reform process - and it doesn't only come from what Tony Simpson described as his 'shit sandwich'.

Be There - 4.30pm Sunday - 5pm for the Forum

Post News, 25th October 2014

Submissions Tell A Story

The Local Government Advisory Board had to take account of many factors in coming to its recommendations. One of these was 'community of interests' - and who better to provide information on that than the people who would be affected by proposed changes.

So far, no one has looked very closely at the submissions made to the LGAB - apart, presumably, from the LGAB itself. When you do, some interesting features emerge.

The first is that very few proposals had more than 30% support. Many were below 5% support.

Those that did get strong support were ones for which there had been substantial community involvement - but the communities concerned (with the possible exception of Melville) were largely supporting their local Council proposal on the basis that it was better (less bad?) than any of the alternatives. We know, from the plebiscite in October 2013, that Vincent electors would have supported a proposal for Vincent to stay as it is if it had been possible to make a proposal in those terms.

The Minister's proposals fared particularly badly, with none receiving more than 30% support and only two exceeding 20%. Five of the minister's 12 proposals (ie nearly half) got less than 5% support. This shows just how badly he has misjudged things right from the start.

The only one of the Minister's proposals to be recommended by the LGAB (Swan-Mundaring) managed to get only 12% support. Compare this with the 75% support for the Shire of Mundaring proposal and one is forced to wonder why the Minister's one got the nod - other than as a consolation prize.

The answer likely lies in the Minister's proposal being compatible with the Bayswater-Bassendean proposal, rather than any other grounds, although the Shire of Mundaring proposal could have been made compatible with only small amendments.

The LGAB makes great play of the 'greater capacity' of the City of Swan to manage the transition - the Minister's proposal has Swan as the 'continuing' local government, but those resources would still be available with a straight amalgamation as proposed by the Shire of Mundaring. [Incidentally, this same issue arises with many of the LGAB recommendations, including Belmont-Kalamunda and Bayswater-Bassendean.]

One is forced to deduce that the Minister's proposal was selected here because the City of Swan one would require too much change to be compatible with Bayswater-Bassendean and the Shire of Mundaring one would actually have given people a vote.

What's Happened At The West?

It would be churlish to dwell on the prolonged silence, until relatively recently, of the West Australian on the debacle that Barnett calls 'local government reform'.

But something has happened in the past couple of months, with articles, opinion pieces and letters critical of Barnett on a range of issues - including aspects of the excellent series of articles by Gareth Parker and Kent Acott on transport and Vancouver (http://sustainabletransportcoalitionofwa.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/lack-of-transparency-in-transport.html).

But today tops them all. In addition to Paul Murray's piece mentioned in my previous post (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/the-strength-of-agreement-barnetts-in.html), there is another opinion piece from Gareth Parker (admittedly mildly critical of the Nationals for taking a stand on a metropolitan issue - albeit one that Barnett has forced them into by his duplicity), five letters, an article and even a piece in Inside Cover.

I particularly like the piece in Inside Cover, as it has John Hammond (who is also my lawyer in the action before the Supreme Court) admitting he has changed his mind over amalgamations. To the extent that I might have contributed to this, I feel extraordinarily pleased to claim that I helped change a lawyer's mind. Sorry John!

Incidentally, Simpson doesn't look very happy in the photo from the media briefing - his 'legacy' is rapidly turning to s#@t, aided by Barnett's rolling him on the LGAB recommendations on Perth and Vincent. With friends like that, Homer, you don't need enemies.

The Strength of Agreement: Barnett's In More Than A Muddle

It isn't often I agree with Paul Murray, but today I find my self in that position. This is despite Murray being absolutely true to and consistent with the basis of his previously-stated positions on this and other issues.

When two people arrive at similar conclusions, coming from very different viewpoints and philosophical/political positions, it means the conclusions are very likely to be highly robust.

Anyway, draw your own conclusions from Paul Murray's article (below) and my comments elsewhere on this blog over the past year or more.

Click to enlarge

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.