LGAB Is Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

The Local Government Advisory Board is just so wrong in its 'Right To Request A Poll' notice in today's West Australian.

It can't even get it's own recommendations right!

The Notice states that the Board recommended, in three cases, that orders be made to amalgamate districts. The Board actually made five such recommendations, the other two being Vincent/Perth and the G5 (Nedlands, Claremont, Cottesloe, Peppermint Grove and Mosman Park).

As I have already observed on this blog (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/yes-we-do-deserve-say-and-have-legal.html), the right to a poll is determined by the LGAB recommendation not by any purported Ministerial response to the recommendation.

The electors of Vincent, Perth and the G5 councils do have the right to a poll - and the clock for submitting a formal request for a poll will not start ticking until the LGAB admits its error and publishes a new notice to that effect.

It is also likely that the LGAB is wrong in implying (by omission) that electors of a district not wholly amalgamated have no right to call a poll. The Local Government Act gives the right to call a poll to 'affected electors' - defined in the Act as 'electors whose eligibility as electors comes from residence, or ownership or occupation of property, in the area directly affected by the proposal'.

This definition clearly applies, for example, to the thousands of Canning residents proposed to be transferred to South Park and the Bicton/Palmyra residents proposed to be transferred to Fremantle/East Fremantle.

South Perth Stays In - And Peppermint Grove Steps Up

My personal thanks to the South Perth City Council for this evening voting to stay in the legal action before the Supreme Court.

 

















No idea what effect (if any) my comments during public question time had - but for what it's worth, here's what I said:

1. The legal action to-date has proceeded with joint funding from four other local governments and one individual. Does the City of South Perth acknowledge that it has benefitted from the financial contributions of the other parties during this time?

2. The legal action is close to resolution, with the formal court hearing scheduled for 25th November, and most of the costs have already been incurred. Does the City of South Perth believe that the small saving from withdrawing from the action at this late stage justifies any potential detriment the other parties to the action and to local government as a whole?

3. The legal action will resolve a number of matters still relevant to South Perth, including whether proposals are valid and, hence, whether a poll needs to be held. In the event a poll is to beheld, the legal action will establish whether the electors of Canning can also call for a poll and if so on what basis. How would the City of South Perth resolve these issues without the benefit of the legal action and at what cost?

And Peppermint Grove has now added another element to the legal barrage facing Barnett and Simpson.

Yes! We Do Deserve A Say - And Have A Legal Right To One

Guardian Express, 4th November 2014

I entirely agree with Mayor John Carey and Denise Cahill, Editor of the Guardian Express, but this is not in doubt. The legal position is that Vincent (and City of Perth) electors do have the right to call a poll under the Local Government Act.

Ignoring the matters that are subject to the Supreme Court action currently under way, the relevant part of the Act ties the poll right to the recommendation of the Local Government Advisory Board - not to any Ministerial response to it.

The Local Government Advisory Board recommended the City of Vincent proposal - which clearly triggers the poll provision. Neither the Minister nor the LGAB can deny the people of Vincent (or Perth) the right to be heard.

Alston Nails Barnett Again

Good to see local government ('Councils') still out there circling with the sharks. And what Barnett stands on (or for) does stink.

The West Australian, 3rd November 2014

Nahan Doesn't Understand - Are We Surprised?

http://www.mikenahan.com.au

Mike Nahan, Treasurer and Member for Riverton, clearly doesn't understand the local government so-called reform process that he has been making a lot of noise about.

He criticises the 'Fight for Canning' campaign on the grounds that it "failed to submit a proposal to remain as it was".

Sorry, Mike, but that isn't an option under the Local Government Act - you can only submit a proposal for change.

If you want to remain as you are, all you can do is make a submission opposing any proposal for change. If Nahan had read the LGAB report, he would know that the vast majority of submissions from Canning residents and ratepayers supported retaining the status quo.

Nahan also wants to prolong the uncertainty by continuing "to fight for the boundary to be shifted east, so that the suburbs of Riverton, Shelley and Willeton are not split".

What is it about this Government? First we had Barnett (and a reluctant Simpson), after all he/they had invested in the LGAB process, rejecting the Vincent/Perth recommendation on the grounds that it wasn't what he wanted - and then saying he will introduce a City of Perth Act to get something closer to what he really wanted, including a blatant gerrymander.

Now we have Nahan saying he doesn't like the recommendations affecting Melville and will use 'other means' to make further adjustments.

Get over it, guys - as the song goes "You can't always get what you want"

Single-Ward Fetish

Perth Voice, 1st November 2014

The Local Government Advisory Board seems to have a fetish for removing the local from local government. Not only does it tow the Barnett/Simpson line that 'bigger is better', it doesn't even like the localism inherent in having local governments divided into wards.

So we would have larger local governments that are, inevitably, more remote from local communities and then, to make things even worse, you won't have ward councillors to represent your interests.

Even with wards, larger local governments would mean more residents and ratepayers for each councillor, but at least you would have some chance of having a representative with some connection with your area and situation.

With a single ward, as Alannah MacTiernan and Bayswater Councillor, Chris Cornish, point out, election becomes the privilege of the wealthy or those with political parties or big business behind them.

Vote Needed Now Not In 2017

A few days ago, Opposition Leader, Mark McGowan, called for the Government to suspend the forced amalgamation process and seek a mandate for it at the next election.

I know it is commonplace these days for governments to claim a mandate, when it suits them, for anything they said in the election campaign - but we all know that is a very selective process these days.

There is also the huge problem that elections are won on a range of issues, not just a single issue, so it is quite possible for a party to win government despite rather than because of one or more of its policies.

So what Mark McGowan ought to be calling for is for all affected communities to be able to call a Dadour poll on the Local Government Advisory Board recommendations - and there is no point in waiting until 2017 for this as to do so would simply prolong the uncertainty.

The Minister can call a poll wherever he chooses (but he has already chosen not to do so in response to a petition from Kalamunda) and there is nothing to stop him requiring them to be on the same basis as a Dadour poll. Simpson rejects doing so because he knows what the outcome will be in many cases and he can't face the humiliation.

Conflict of Interest - Yet Again

A number of people have raised a curious aspect of conflict of interest with me recently.

On 9th June, 2014, the Minister for Local Government issued a declaration that the conflict of interest provisions relating to the Local Government Advisory Board did not apply to the deliberations of the Board on current metropolitan local government (so-called) reform proposals.

Those conflicts of interest relate to discussion of matters relating to "a local government of which the member [of the LGAB] is a member or an employee". The Minister was entirely within his rights under the Local Government Act to issue such a declaration, but I (and many others) regard him as being misguided in doing so.

This declaration, however, does not void conflicts of interest the other way - nor does it void any conflicts of interest prior to 9th June.

It is to be sincerely hoped that those to whom this applies have formally declared their interest when their local government has been discussing matters relating to the Local Government Advisory Board and its deliberations on local government so-called reform.

Stirling Does Get It

The situation of the City of Stirling has often been missing in the clamour about forced amalgamations, but not being forced to amalgamate doesn't necessarily help you. Stirling is the big territory loser out of the LGAB recommendations - and because it clearly doesn't merge (even by 'boundary adjustment') with any other local government (it simply gets a lot smaller) its community has no access to a poll.

Mayor Giovanni Italiano clearly gets it when he says that "the mergers could cost its [City of Stirling] ratepayers millions". He hasn't been conned by the Premier and Minister making vague and unsubstantiated noises about 'economies of scale' and 'efficiencies'.

Cr Terry Tyzack clearly gets it when he says "there is a perception that decisions made by government ministers cannot be challenged. This is not the case - Ministers are not all powerful or supreme".

As I wrote in an earlier post on this blog (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/wtf.html): "Barnett needs to understand or, failing that, be forcibly reminded that the power of Government is limited, in the immediate sense, by the law and by the Parliament and, in the longer term, by the people who elect it."

It is unfortunate but, as the City of Stirling has found out, true that it is necessary to go to the courts to prevent the excesses of the Executive.

Disquiet At Mundaring

On the subject of the Community Forum at Mundaring on Wednesday evening (see also previous post - http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/another-contradiction-but-pickard-gets.html), there was a lot of disquiet among the 120-or-so people who attended - although most were too polite to vent the anger that underlay that disquiet - as I found out when talking to some of them after the meeting.

Shire President, Helen Dullard, who is in the unfortunate position of also being a member of the Local Government Advisory Board, singularly failed to convince the meeting that there was nothing more to be done except work with the City of Swan to get the best deal possible. Her attempt to convince the meeting that the Shire of Kalamunda had wasted $80,000 on its poll in October 2013 and that its spending more money now on opposing the takeover by Belmont would weaken its negotiating position was a spectacular failure and, I have to say, an almost unforgivable slur on the actions of another local council.

I can only presume that Ms Dullard was unaware of criticism from the City of Belmont Mayor that his community had been denied access to the poll provision of the Local Government Act (reported in the Southern Gazette, Belmont Edition), which suggests that Belmont and Kalamunda are thinking alike at least on this critical issue. 

When I challenged Ms Dullard's statement that everything was decided, by mentioning the legal action in the Supreme Court, her only response was along the lines that "Tony Simpson says the legal challenge has no chance of success". Well, what else would he say? If he acknowledged that there was a good chance of its succeeding, he would have great difficulty justifying his continuing to defend the action.

At the end of the meeting, despite Ms Dullard's apparent reticent to put a motion to the vote (saying something like she 'had the feel of the meeting'), a resolution was carried unanimously that: "This meeting condemns the boundary change decision with respect to the Shire of Mundaring".

Another Contradiction - But Pickard Gets It (Partly) Right For Once

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-29

At his meeting with Mayors, Presidents and CEOs on Wednesday, Tony Simpson said that there would be no more money for forced amalgamations (well, he didn't use the word forced - but we wouldn't expect that degree of honesty from him on this matter, would we) but that the loans would be made available over a longer period.

That evening, at a community forum in Mundaring, Shire President, Helen Dullard (who is also a member of the Local Government Advisory Board) said that the reason for Mundaring's low financial sustainability score was that it had chosen to take out loans for much-needed infrastructure and facilities over 30 years rather than the more usual 10 years, in order to make the repayments more affordable.

So what Simpson is now saying to Councils is that the pitiful funding available as loans will now be available on a basis that makes local governments less financially sustainable than they would otherwise be!

Foot in mouth, Minister!

And Troy Pickard is undoubtedly right when he says that "in the short term rates will need to rise to help fund the cost of amalgamations".

He is wrong, however, in his implication that rates will be lower in the longer term. There is no evidence to support this, especially where amalgamations have not been voluntary, and Simpson has either been unwilling or (more likely) unable to provide evidence of savings that will result from his forced amalgamations in Perth.

This Premier Has Got to Go - And The Sooner The Better

Not content with bending the Local Government Act out of all recognition to try to achieve the result he wants, Colin Barnett is now proposing to ignore the law completely (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/wtf.html).

The legal action to be heard in the Supreme Court on 25th November is, as much as anything, about making sure that the lawmakers abide by the laws they make.

Barnett is claiming that the Government can do what it likes - never mind what the law (which he voted for in 1995) says.

Barnett has boasted that he will put in place an outrageous gerrymander for the City of Perth/Vincent, in direct contravention of all electoral laws, conventions and democratic principles.

Barnett has lost this state its AAA credit rating through his grandiose schemes.

Barnett is out of control and is dangerous. He has to be got rid of - and we can't afford to wait until 2017.

My message to all Liberals with even a modicum of concern for the future of Western Australia and its democracy is "Don't let Barnett bully you any longer".

WTF!

I don't normally use bad language - even in abbreviation form - but this latest arrogance from Barnett has me absolutely gobsmacked.

The Local Government Act states, very clearly, that the Minister can accept or reject recommendations from the Local Government Advisory Board.

The Local Government Act does not say that the Minister (or the Premier) can 'tweak' the recommendations to suit their own purposes.

So where does Col Pot get off in saying "We can do [tweak the recommendations], we are the Government … we can accept or reject, and probably will accept most of them, but accept or reject does not mean that we cannot do it in alternative way".

Barnett needs to understand or, failing that, be forcibly reminded that the power of Government is limited, in the immediate sense, by the law and by the Parliament and, in the longer term, by the people who elect it.

Time for a palace coup, methinks.

Is This Good or Bad News?

Gareth Parker in today's West Australian suggests that Barnett staying to fight the 2017 election could be good news for Labor. Did he know this announcement was coming?

I'm not so sure, though, because of Barnett's own logic he would have had to resign one year out from the 2017 election if he wasn't going to lead the Liberal Party at the election. That's (at least) one more year of arrogance and petulance from the small-minded man.

On the other hand, might Barnett's toxicity now encourage another Liberal to unseat him.

On the local government issue there would be a lot of pluses for someone to replace Barnett now, if he's going to hang around like the proverbial bad smell until 2017 and beyond.

The new Premier could offer all communities a Dadour Poll. Because the conditions for rejection are hard to meet, some amalgamations would probably get up, but some would not.

The new Premier could say he will not introduce a City of Perth Act, with or without gerrymander, but will allow electors of Vincent, Perth and the G5 to have a Dadour vote on the LGAB recommendations.

The new Premier could then say he has achieved some reform (something none of his predecessors had done) without trampling on people's democratic rights.

Mr Clean. Local government ceases to be a negative and disruptive issue for the Liberal Party.

Late Addition: On ABC radio this morning, Barnett said he "would always do what I think is best for the Government to be re-elected".

Time to go, Col - even on your own arguments!

Another Gerrymander

As the specific decisions on local government structure gradually sink in, there is increasing concern about the effects of 'boundary adjustment' (instead of amalgamation) on the fairness of representation.

Take the case of Swan and Mundaring or Belmont and Kalamunda or Bayswater and Bassendean or Cambridge and Subiaco, for example - in fact all of the LGAB recommendations accepted by the Minister where there is a 'continuing council' irrespective of whether a ward structure is put in place.

The 'continuing council' (Swan, Belmont, Bayswater, Cambridge, etc) governs the whole new entity from July 2015 to October 2015. The people of the subsumed entity (Mundaring, Kalamunda, Bassendean, Subiaco, etc) have no representation at all on Council for that period.

Come the election of October 2015, half the councillors of the 'continuing council' still go on, as they have two years left in their elected term. The other half of the elected positions come up for election and one might expect them to be filled with some candidates from each of the areas, even without a ward structure.

However, the fact remains that the 'continuing council' has a guaranteed majority of elected members for the first two full years, which is precisely the time when key decisions will be made about the form, functioning and policies of the new entity.

The people of the subsumed Council area will be grossly under-represented for that same period.

This might not look like a gerrymander - but the result is the same - at least for the critical first two years.

Front Page News

Not only has the West Australian come alive on the local government so-called reform issue (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/whats-happened-at-west.html), but local papers (in addition to the long-supporting Post) are also doing so. I've already reported on the front page of the Perth Voice last week (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/wa-stink.html) and now Community Newspapers, including the Western Suburbs Weekly in the Liberal heartland.

Some were content with  more or less straight reporting of the Minister's decisions, often with praise from the 'winners' - although the Eastern Reporter did give some prominence to the Mayor of Bassendean's concern that "even trying to retain representation of Bassendean is going to be very difficult".

The Southern Gazette South Perth edition couldn't resist a 'South Park' jibe, but the  Belmont edition gave prominence to criticism from the City of Belmont Mayor that his community had been denied access to the poll provision of the Local Government Act. I have to say that if the City of Belmont really wanted its community to have able to have a poll, it shouldn't have described its proposal (which was recommended by the LGAB) as a 'boundary adjustment'.











The Stirling Times drew attention to one of the forgotten stories of the whole debacle - the reduction of the City of Stirling. Mayor Giovanni Italiano says he "remains unconvinced that this decision will provide any benefits to our ratepayers whatsoever".

Where is the 21st Century Model For Democracy?

Click to enlarge

Great succinct assessment here (http://worldstreets.wordpress.com/2014/10/25/op-ed-political-behaviour-is-largely-non-rational), from someone based in Lyon, France, that applies equally to what is happening in Western Australia right now with the state government attempting to force local government amalgamations. Legal action might actually stop this one in its tracks and community pressure has forced some splits in the ranks of the powerful, but it shouldn’t be necessary (and isn’t always possible) to resort to the courts to curb the excesses of the Executive. Somewhere along the line, the Parliament has lost its way and is now no more than a rubber-stamp for the Executive in most cases.

My own view is that conventional political parties are 19th century dinosaurs, necessary in their day to achieve some form of consensus when communication was slow and cumbersome. The disengagement of people from politics is reflected in the plummeting membership of political parties (http://www.economist.com/news/essays/21596796-democracy-was-most-successful-political-idea-20th-century-why-has-it-run-trouble-and-what-can-be-do) which, in turn, allows small groups to dominate parties and further alienates the rest of us.

In the 21st century we have much more immediate and effective ways of influencing decisions (witness the rise of petition websites such as GetUp and Avaaz) than either Parliament or political parties. Until our political system embraces 21st century technology, including social networking, it will continue to move further and further from the ideals of democracy on which western societies are supposedly based.

Leave the Defilibrator Behind, Please

Alston says it all - but the last thing we want is for Barnett's arrogance to be resuscitated.

West Australian, 28th October 2014

McGowan Challenges Barnett To A Duel

At least I hope that's what Mark McGowan was effectively doing today in Kalamunda.

Grand and statesmanlike though his challenge to Barnett to take local council mergers to an election sounds, it only works if there is clear distinction between the positions of the two major parties.

I am heartened by what Labor has said and done in the past month or so, but we need to keep a careful eye on things to make sure that the Labor policy on local government is a viable and distinctly-different alternative to Barnett's arrogance.

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.