The Tsunami Is Building

If Colin Barnett thinks that his City of Perth Bill will get an easy ride because it doesn't obviously affect more than a few, he is mistaken. These are but the early shots in the battle - it's not only Subiaco and Nedlands but Kings Park, Vincent and Victoria Park. If you you doubt that, keep watching this space.

Love the re-use of the Subi banner from previous fiasco. This and Tony Noakes' letter ("Nobody has told us what the City of Perth Bill is for, what it is supposed to achieve…") demonstrates that Barnett has learnt nothing.

Porkies In Parliament?

Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, stated in the Legislative Assembly on 21st May (in response to a Dorothy Dix question that gave him the opportunity to say more than time allowed in his second reading speech) that "the government is working with the City of Subiaco on transitional arrangements for affected ratepayers in the area known as the Crawley finger" (http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Hansard/hansard.nsf/0/513ef68fcc01b2ad48257e500016e8ca/$FILE/A39+S1+20150521+p4191c-4192a.pdf).

Subiaco Mayor, Heather Henderson strongly denies this, saying: "the City hasn't had any interaction with anyone from the government since … the beginning of March".

I rely, here, not only on the report in the Post (above), although I would confidently do that. I have discussed this Mayor Henderson and have no doubt that what she says is true.

Given that Simpson's statement was in response to a clearly-planted question (Tony Krsticevic is the Government Whip in the Assembly) and, therefore, he would have had a prepared answer, it is difficult, if not impossible, to avoid drawing the conclusion that Simpson knowingly mislead the Parliament.

Abbot Even Worse Than Barnett!

Col Pot's arrogance and disdain on Council loan guarantee fees (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/in-defeat-malice.html), is of a kind with Abbott's reported attempt to bulldoze stripping of citizenship at the sole discretion (whim?) of one Minister (Peter Dutton) through his Cabinet without it's even being on the Cabinet agenda, let alone there having being any discussion with more than a small coterie of favoured Ministers - which didn't include Julie Bishop who is the deputy leader of the Liberal Party, the Foreign Affairs Minister, the minister with oversight of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, a member of the National Security Committee of cabinet and a central figure in Australia's effort to defeat the terrorists of the so-called Islamic State.

Even George Brandis, Barnaby Joyce and Christopher Pyne, none of them renowned for their intelligence or social conscience, could see problems with the proposal - what does that say about Abbott, Dutton and Morrison?

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/tony-abbott-rolled-by-his-own-ministers-over-stripping-terrorists-of-citizenship-20150529-ghcuxf.html

In Defeat, Malice

I have previously drawn attention in this blog to Colin Barnett's love of Jim Hacker's PM's maxim from Yes, Minister: "In victory, revenge. In defeat, malice."

In yet another example of this, Col Pot has increased a charge on local governments by 600%. As WALGA President, Troy Pickard, has rightly said "the decision was contradictory to the Reserve Bank’s interest rate cuts, which were aimed at reducing the cost of finance as a means of stimulating the economy".

But more important than this is the disdain it shows for proper process and consultation. At the very least, good governance requires that there be some discussion with the local government sector before such a massive change is put in place.

Who'da Thunk It? Doctors Have A View on Health Policy

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-21/health-minister-warns-ama-over-comments/6488548

WA Health Minister, Kim Hames, seems to be suffering from the same malaise that afflicts many members of the Barnett Government - an inability to acknowledge that people who work in or are affected by an area of activity might want to express an informed view on government policy - although that is probably being kind to the Government, as its version of policy appears to be a series of disconnected and often conflicting actions and changes of direction.

"Lost the plot on health? Because we're considering what may happen to Royal Perth at some stage in the future?" he said.

If only that were so, Dr Hames (ironic, really, that he is a doctor himself). I doubt it's RPH in isolation but it is the latest piece of the dogs breakfast this Government is making of the health system.

As for Dr Hames being "bothered by the AMA's commentary on Government health policy" - get over it. I bet he wouldn't be complaining if the AMA were making sycophantic comments saying everything was hunky-dory.

Devil. Detail. City of Perth Bill

The City of Perth Bill is on the Legislative Assembly Notice Paper to be introduced today.

The Bill itself can be found at http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Parliament/Bills.nsf/1A82838DDD41FB0E48257E4B002AB76C/$File/Bill135-1.pdf.

As I have said previously, the devil is in the detail - and the limited information available from the Notice Paper does nothing to lessen my concerns. Nor does reading the Bill help very much.

In addition to matters announced by the Premier yesterday, the Bill will:

- repeal the City of Perth Restructuring Act 1993

- make consequential and other amendments to the Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority Act 1998, the Local Government Act 1960 Part VIA and the Local Government Act 1995

The City of Perth Restructuring Act, 1993, was the legislation that established the Towns of Vincent, Victoria Park and Cambridge - so what are implications of repealing it? In the absence of provisions in the City of Perth Bill for the continuation of those Local Governments, does this potentially disestablish them? Or am I jumping at shadows?

'Consequential and other amendments to the Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority Act 1998' has me really concerned for the future of Kings Park. If the bringing of Kings Park within the City of Perth boundaries was no more than a matter of its location, I doubt there would be any need to amend the BGPA Act. So what else (especially as 'other amendments') is going on here.

Section 30 of the City of Perth Bill states that 'no local law (presumably - but not specified - of the City of Perth) applies to or in respect of King’s Park', but local governments do not only exercise their functions and powers through local laws. So does the Bill give City of Perth 'open slather' in other respects?

With regard to amendments to the Local Government Act, there is no longer a Local Government Act, 1960, but Part VIA of that Act was continued by Clause 16 of Schedule 9.3 of the 1995 Act, which is surely what should be amended, not the original provision in the now-defunct 1960 Act - this is what the Bill does, but not as stated in the Notice Paper. The reference to Part VIA appears to relate to superannuation provisions for City of Perth.

But what, one wonders, are the 'consequential and other amendments … to the Local Government Act 1995' and the 'related matters' provided for.

And how on earth can a Bill that the Parliament is being asked to make an informed decision on include a map of new boundaries for the City of Perth that is labelled 'Indicative Only'. This especially worrying in the light of Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson's comment reported in this morning's West Australian that Burswood "could be reviewed, with the Government believing it belonged in the capital city'. 

Moreover, section 37 of the City of Perth Bill requires the Local Government Advisory Board to deal differently with the City of Perth. It reads: "In carrying out a formal inquiry into a proposal that directly 5 affects the district of Perth, the Advisory Board is also to 6 have regard to the special significance of the role and 7 responsibilities of the City of Perth that flow from Perth 8 being the capital of Western Australia." 

So a future proposal (perhaps from the City of Perth) to bring Burswood within the City of Perth would be assessed differently from the way the LGAB recently did.

Residents and Ratepayers of Victoria Park beware.

Watch this space.

Cynical Ploy - Why Does City of Perth 'Need' QEII Medical Centre?

Treasurer, Mike Nahan, has said that Royal Perth Hospital might need to be demolished but that it would be rebuilt and remain a tertiary hospital. This begs the question of where the money might be coming from, especially as he also acknowledges that the Barnett government had done too much with the simultaneous building and rebuilding of 11 other hospitals.

If we believe what he says, the obvious question is why the City of Perth 'needs' the QEII Medical Centre in order to be a world-class capital city.

Forgive my scepticism, but it seems more likely to be a ploy to get us to accept demolition of RPH after which the government would say 'no money to rebuild' and, anyway, QEII is the City of Perth hospital.

The State Government then has a prime central city landholding that it can sell to private developers in yet another asset fire sale to try to reduce the burden of public debt this government has saddled us with.

Here We Go: Time To Mobilise For People of Nedlands/Subiaco and Kings Park

Colin Barnett has announced he will introduce Bill for City of Perth Act tomorrow.

http://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/pages/StatementDetails.aspx?listName=StatementsBarnett&StatId=9513

The Bill has not yet been published, so we have no information other than what Barnett wants us to have at this stage. It will be published when it has been introduced into Parliament.

According to the ABC's Jessica Strutt:

- Govt confirms City of Perth Act to be introduced to Parliament this week... It will happen tomorrow 

- New boundary changes won't take effect until 1 July next year 

- Premier will chair a new City of Perth committee but it will only be required to meet twice a year under legislation 

- No new planning powers for City of Perth
- Premier Colin Barnett says Nats won't oppose City of Perth Act but may exempt themselves from the vote

- Premier acknowledges he's likely to need Labor's support for the legislation

The last two points are critical. 

Time to write to Nats (urging them at least to abstain but preferably to vote against) and to ALP urging them to vote against - primarily on the grounds that (a) the Act forcibly transfers 1168 people into the City of Perth, (b) City of Perth has previously said very strongly (in relation to City of Vincent) that it doesn't want residential areas (and therefore it would not be very likely to have much concern with the interests of those 1168 residents) and (c) potentially compromises the independence of the Kings Park Board.

Whatever Happened to MAX?

Following Vincent Council's rejecting the Government's bus lane proposal for Fitzgerald Street, largely on the very-reasonable grounds that it provides no adequate basis for long term planning and development of either transport or land use, long-term Vincent resident Andrew Main has come to the defence of bus lanes in a letter to the Perth Voice newspaper.

As a long-time urban transport planner and former Vincent Councillor, I can't let Andrew's assertions go unchallenged.

Andrew criticises the Vincent Council for 'withholding support' from the Government bus lane proposal - apparently on the grounds that something (anything?) is better than nothing - although he admits to severe doubts about light rail anyway.

Andrew appears to consider that the only role of public transport is to get people to and from the City of Perth ("The bus lane proposal on Fitzgerald Street will benefit Vincent residents by making bus trips into and out of the city much quicker"). I, for one, would rather see public transport that created better access to and within the City of Vincent rather than simply speeding-up journeys to the central city.

What Andrew fails to realise is that light rail brings benefits beyond pure travel to a place that is already busy. Light rail has been demonstrated time and time again to encourage development, business, employment and appropriate residential density at key points along its route; bus lanes do not do so to anything like the same extent. The key reason for this is the sheer permanence of light rail infrastructure, which gives investors reassurance about the future.

Bus lanes and bus services are inherently flexible, but this apparent advantage is actually a disadvantage in a metropolitan region that is having to accommodate rapid population growth. In the absence of a strategic and selective approach to development and density in Vincent, which is better supported by light rail than by bus, we will be faced with less discriminating pressure to increase density across Vincent as a whole.

And even though the PTA states that its proposed bus lanes are consistent with implementing the MAX light rail at a later date, the danger is that when patronage is sufficient to 'justify' this it will all be too difficult - what do you do with that large number of existing passengers, who provide the justification, while you are installing the light rail.

Bus lanes do have a valuable role to play - but not everywhere. At the very least, we need to be sure that the PTA has properly considered all the issues and that this is not simply a cheap short-term fix that will make life more difficult and preclude desirable outcomes in the longer term.

And Eleni Evangel has bought into the issue, stating that "light rail is not off the table entirely". 

Well, that will give the Vincent community and Council great reassurance! 

In next to no time we've gone from a firm commitment to MAX light rail for a corridor sorely ignored by rail public transport in Perth to el-cheapo bus lanes and light rail 'not being entirely off the table'.

WALGA Supporting Local Councils

That shouldn't really be a newsworthy headline, but there were many times during the Barnett/Simpson local government so-called reform debacle that the WA Local Government Association at best didn't reflect the views and concerns of all its member councils and, at worst, was decidedly partisan in the Government's favour.

Even now, there are some councils pursuing their own individual claims for compensation, suggesting a continuing lack of faith in the Association to adequately represent the interests of all its members.

Either way, the claims for reimbursement are legitimate. If Barnett/Simpson hadn't embarked on their ill-advised ideological vendetta, local governments would not have had to incur these costs.

If there is no reimbursement, Barnett and Simpson will lose even more credibility than they already have.

Cart Before Horse - Again

I doubt anyone is so naive as to think that the City of Perth is not privy, even before Cabinet, to what is in the proposed City of Perth Act, but it seems the ultimate disrespect for Parliament to assume that the Bill to be introduced into Parliament will actually become law.

On the basis of current stated positions, Labor, the Nationals and the Greens - and possibly a few Liberals - will oppose the Bill in the Legislative Council. Barnett does not have the numbers in Parliament.

Even before that, it remains to be seen if he has the numbers in his own Party room, where he was previously rolled on his attempt to remove the Dadour poll provision that so emphatically scuppered his whole so-called reform of local government.

If I were a ratepayer of the City of Perth (and fortunately that possibility, for so long a concern to many of us, is no longer a real one - at least until some politician forgets the lessons of the Barnett/Simpson debacle), I would be wanting assurances that the proposed restructure and additional jobs (and costs) were able to be adjusted and continue to be appropriate in the event that the City of Perth retains its current boundaries under the Local Government Act.

And the reported logic is more than a little bemusing, too. On the one hand: "We've streamlined the organisation so that there is a thinning of the organisation with a greater strengthening in job roles" - sounds like telling people they have to work harder. On the other hand, 60-80 new jobs are 'required' - and I doubt that Nedlands/Subiaco devote anything like that many staff to UWA, QEII, Hollywood Hospital and the immediate residential areas.

So - what new functions is the City of Perth to be granted under the proposed City of Perth Act? Or is this just another illustration of the fallacy of economies of scale so often spruiked by Barnet and Simpson when all the evidence pointed the other way.

The Council dealt with this matter behind closed doors - and the media release gives no information on this. I guess we'll just have to wait and see - once again, the community is being given the mushroom treatment.

This Government Doesn't Do Its Homework

ABC, 30th April 2015

Those of us who have been intimately involved in the debacle of this government's local government so-called reform process know only too well that Barnett and Co don't do their homework before deciding what they're going to do - and as a result find themselves continually having to change both the what and the how - and ultimately have to abandon it entirely.

The latest example is the belated apparent acknowledgment that the $630,000 a year the City of Nedlands receives in rates from the Hollywood Private Hospital is crucial to the sustainability of that local government.

But it is still sticking to the myth, aided and abetted by the University of WA itself, that a capital city needs a university campus and a major hospital within its boundaries (why then is it downgrading Royal Perth Hospital?) - without putting forward a shred of evidence to support it. Sounds horribly like the 'economies of scale' myth of sand that was the 'foundation' of local government so-called reform.

There might be a valid argument that a major institution campus should be within one local government, but this doesn't have to be the City of Perth. And certainly it doesn't apply where the institution is split between more than one site, as UWA is. I very much doubt, for example, that anyone would argue that the Curtin University Postgraduate Business School in the City of Perth should come under the Town of Victoria Park, as the main campus does.

In fact, given the spatial separation from the rest of the City of Perth and the fact that UWA and QEII are bounded by residential areas that bear the brunt of access and parking demands generated by them (as Nedlands Mayor, Max Hipkins, rightly points out), the case is surely stronger for those institutions to be part of the local government(s) that have responsibility for the neighbouring areas.

One of the key criteria for local government, according to the Local Government Act, is 'community of interest'. In this case, that requires the institutions and the surrounding communities to be able to work together to manage conflicting as well as shared interests.

Celebration Time

As the Post observed, the less significant of two events in Subiaco on Sunday 19th April 2015 was the western derby at Subiaco Oval.

The war might not be over - there are still battles to be fought over Barnett's proposed City of Perth Act' - but the rescission of Governors Orders on 13th March (unreported on this blog, as I was overseas at the time) clearly required celebration. Many thanks to the City of Subiaco for organising this.

It was good to catch up with many of those who had driven community campaigns so effectively, to hear their stories - and to see their genuine opposition to what Barnett is proposing to inflict on Subiaco, Nedlands and Kings Park.

History Is A Product Of Multiple Causes: Differing Views

It is a cliche to say that history is written by the victors, but sometimes those who appear to have 'won' (at least for the time being) disagree on how and why they did so.

Malcolm Mummery, who was an early activist when he started the Dadour Group, argues that it's all due to the politicians, while others, including myself, say that most politicians, including the Opposition, only became interested when the extent of the community outrage became apparent.

There is some truth in both points of view - this is a classic case of an outcome being achieved as a result of multiple inputs, none of which can be described as the sole or determining cause. Indeed, remove any one of the inputs, including some of the unbelievably stupid things that Barnett and Simpson did, and the outcome might well have been very different.

Sauce. Goose. Gander. Nahan.

Click to enlarge

Mike Nahan, masquerading as the Member for Riverton but trying to carry all the weight of being a Cabinet Minister, several times publicly called for a different outcome for local government from that recommended by the Local Government Advisory Board or accepted by his Ministerial colleague, Tony Simpson (particularly to get all of his constituency into the City of Melville).

So much for Cabinet solidarity.

So, he's quite happy to try to use public opinion to influence decisions when it suits him, but when someone (he assumes it to be a public servant, but apparently without any evidence) attempts to do the same for decisions he has or is about to make it suddenly becomes 'political games' and shouldn't happen.

Sauce for the goose. Sauce for the gander, Ned - oops! almost managed a full post without using his alter ego.

No doubt he would prefer simply to make decisions, announce them and have the hoi poloi roll over and accept them.

Welcome to the 21st Century, Mr Nahan - the century of open and accountable government - whether government likes it or not. Keeping secrets doesn't work any more.

Simpson 'Shares Blame' - But It's Everyone Else's Fault

There is something truly Pythonesque* about Tony Simpson's latest protestations. He admits that "the State Government could have handled the reform process differently" [presumably he means better] and that he "shared the blame for its failure" - but he also says it's the fault of scaremongering and self-interest from Councils.

He still doesn't get it, does he! It was a single member of the community who initiated the legal action. It was individuals and community groups who kept the pressure on throughout the so-called process. And it was community groups (albeit in one case with the active support of its Council) that brought about the binding 'NO' votes in three of the Dadour polls.

And his suggestion that he should have taken all the boundaries off the map and drawn circles around the regional centres might make sense if you were literally starting from scratch but completely ignores the reality of having to split most local governments two or three ways and then combining bits of half a dozen into one.

Even if the new state were better than the previous one, the transition costs (economic, financial and social) would be horrendous and long-lasting. Local government services would suffer for many years as all the parts were brought together and rationalised - and valued programs would be likely to disappear as they did not have 'majority ownership' in the new council(s).

* Reference to the 'Dead Bishop' sketch, in which the villain says: "All right, it's a fair cop, but society is to blame" - at which the policeman then says: "We'll be charging them, too".

Hills Gazette, 3rd March 2015. Click to enlarge

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, Minister.

Click to enlarge

There is no surprise in Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, releasing a Crime and Corruption Commission report that found 'systemic weaknesses' in local government procurement processes so soon after his ignominious defeat on local government so-called reform.

No surprise either in his calling it a 'wake-up call' for local government.

The CCC found that "of 13 investigations into allegations of serious misconduct in local governments last year, eight showed serious flaws in how councils supervised the purchase of goods and services". That's eight for 130 councils and however many purchasing decisions.

Simpson is quite right when he says that "the community has a reasonable expectation that government at all levels be open and accountable and local government is no exception". I don't know of anyone in local government who would object to that.

Perhaps, though, we should be asking Simpson where the openness and accountability were in his local government so-called reform process, when he consistently failed to provide a business case to support it and continually changed tack to evade challenges.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, Minister.

Allowing the Auditor General to scrutinise local governments in the same way as he is able to do for state agencies is probably a sensible way to go. As the author of the CCC report observed in his recommendation, this is consistent with the recommendation of the (Parliamentary) Public Accounts Committee in 2006 and one is forced to ask why successive governments and ministers have failed to act on this recommendation.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, Minister.

However, recent experience with State Government agencies shows that this is in no way a panacea.

Perhaps we should also be asking Simpson's Ministerial colleague, the Minister for Health, where the openness and accountability were in the recent Healthway scandal.

And the Minister for Health also needs to tell us where the openness and accountability were in respect of Health Department procurement that drew a similar adverse finding from the Crime and Corruption Commission.



















The CCC's second recommendation could be taken to be a not-very-veiled criticism of the Local Government Department and, by inference, this Minister and previous ministers. The recommendation reads: "that the Department of Local Government and Communities actively oversights risk management reviews prepared by local governments pursuant to the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 to ensure that they include appropriate assessment of misconduct risks arising from procurement, and mechanisms for reducing those risks". 

This clearly raises the question of why the Department hasn't been doing this and whether the Minister should have made sure that it did do so. 

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, Minister.

The Blame Game Begins

I suppose we should not be surprised that Local Government Minister (for now) Tony Simpson seeks to blame Councils for the failure of his ill-thought-out, poorly-explained and never-justified council amalgamation fiasco, but he is way off the mark when he argues that he didn't ask councils to spend money on the process. 

When he does become specific, he only mentions money spent on opposition -which wouldn't have been necessary if his proposals and process had been more reasonable and democratic.

But most of the costs councils are saying the state government should reimburse them was spent on constructive work towards amalgamations that most thought were inevitable. These costs were a direct result of Simpson's intransigence and the failure of the process was largely due to community (not just Council) opposition to his deceitful and anti-democratic actions.

Tony Simpson maintains the fiction that he didn't force councils to spend money on reform and adds that 'they didn't consult'. Talk about pot calling kettle black.

The fact is that Simpson gave Councils no option but to put in proposals largely similar to his own - and they did so under duress resulting from that threat. Yes, many could have consulted better, but Simpson's announced timeline didn't give a whole lot of time to do so. And where Councils called polls (as Vincent did) he showed no inclination to be influenced by the results.

There never was any justification for the amalgamations pushed by Barnett and Simpson. In fact, they flew in the face of evidence and experience from just about everywhere else. I recall at one stage Simpson's saying, almost proudly, that he had no business case (he still doesn't) and that the Local Government Advisory Board would "assess costs and benefits AFTER the decisions were made". How's that for back-to-front policy!

Councils who spent money in good faith on behalf of their ratepayers should not be held liable for the failure of Simpson and Barnett to explain what they were trying to achieve, what it would cost and what the benefits would be.  

Kalamunda Reporter, 24th February. Click to enlarge

Reporting the Vincent Decision

Click to enlarge

Perth Voice deadline meant it missed the story but almost reported it as a foregone conclusion. I look forward to reading this week's edition.

Guardian Express picked up on my description as 'second most momentous day' for Vincent community.

Click to enlarge

A Definite 'F for Fail' in Communication

All through the local government so-called reform fiasco there have been calls for better communication.

Communication of what the process was intended to achieve - other than the obvious and simplistic reduction of the number of local councils in Perth.

Communication of the business case (costs and benefits) of the so-called-reform.

Communication of the state of play and frequent changes of direction in the process - for which the so-called 'Local Government Updates' were often worse than useless.

Communication of what the 'white-flag-flying' really means and when the Governor's Orders will be rescinded. Indeed, many people are still sufficiently suspicious of the Premier and the Minister to question whether they really intend to rescind those orders or are simply prevaricating to find a way to avoid doing so.

And now we read that neither the Premier nor the Minister had the decency to communicate their backdown to local governments directly affected.

Shame, Col, Shame.

Shame, Homer, Shame.

Examiner Newspapers, 19th February 2015. Click to enlarge