Improving Local Government in WA

The WA Government is undertaking a review of the Local Government Act. Stage 1 covered areas where some immediate improvements could be made. Stage 2 covers more strategic issues:

The review is probably timely, given that the current Act was passed in 1995 and represented considerable change from the way local government in WA had operated since the 1960s. However, it is unfortunate that neither the discussion papers nor any other documentation relating to the Review clearly defines problems that the Review is intended to address. Instead, they set out a broad vision for local government without providing a context for assessing whether proposed reforms would improve the performance of local government. 

This is particularly pertinent in the case of the pro-forma surveys attached to each of the detailed discussion papers, which ask for simplistic responses (eg ‘Yes’, ‘No’, ‘Unsure’) to a series of questions without adequate (or, in many cases, any) supporting information. This 'tick-a-box' approach to consultation is an insult to those wishing to make a considered submission to the Review and is unlikely to provide useful information.

I'd strongly encourage anyone still considering making a submission to do so in their own words rather than simply ticking boxes defined by the authors of the Review.

Anyway, here is my submission, for what it is worth. [NB click on each page to enlarge.]

-->

Planning System Review: Be Alert In Lead-Up To Christmas

Back in July, I drew attention to the WA Government's review of the planning system and posted my submission to that review (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com/2018/07/green-paper-modernising-western.html).

Objectives of the planning review include:

• Making strategic planning the cornerstone of all planning decisions;
• Opening up the planning system so that it is understandable to all;
• Clarifying local and State planning roles and functions of the WA Planning Commission and Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage;
• Responding to community concerns about accountability and transparency of Development Assessment Panels;
• Formally recognising the need for community participation;
• Creating more certainty for industry and cutting red tape; and
• Refining developer contribution schemes. 

The Green Paper did not, in my view, satisfactorily address some of the key issues that have been of concern to communities across Perth in recent years. Indeed, in some respects, its proposals would exacerbate those problems - most notably through expanding the role and influence of so-called specialist members of the DAPs to include domination of the WA Planning Commission as well.

In addition, there was no mention at all of enhancing the rights of individuals and communities in the appeal process.

Over 240 submissions were received and the review team in the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage is reviewing the submission to assist the Government in responding to the Green Paper.

Unlike most such Inquiries and Reviews (including, for example, the current review of the WA Local Government Act - https://www.dlgsc.wa.gov.au/localgovernment/strengthening/Pages/LGactreview-submissions.aspx), submissions do not appear to be available online for us to read. We will have no idea, therefore, of the views expressed, by whom they were expressed or how much the Government response actually relates to them.

There has been silence on the matter since submissions closed on 20th July, 2018, but given various statements previously made about 'quick wins' - not to mention the fact that we are approaching the halfway mark of this term of government - it would be reasonable to expect some response within 6 months. That puts it, of course, fairly and squarely in the silly season, when families are on holiday and most of us have our minds on other things than the WA planning system.

I might well be unduly cynical in drawing attention to the possibility that the Government's proposals for change might be announced in the lead-up to Christmas/New Year, thus slipping under the radar of many, especially community organisations that tend to go into recess in December/January. 

Indeed, I hope I am proved wrong, but just in case, I'll be keeping a close eye on what happens and bring it to attention here and on my Twitter account.

West Australian Looking For The Bad In Local Government

On Friday 14th September, the West Australian reported on the newly-released Annual Report of the Local Government Standards Panel ('Councillors face complaints surge', West Australian, 14 September), focusing on the increase in complaints rather than the substance of the report. 

The substance provides a rather less pessimistic picture.

Overall, there were fewer than six complaints per ten councils and less than one-third of those determined were upheld. That's less than one upheld complaint for every five councils in WA over the whole year.

For metropolitan councils, if we exclude Melville, which accounted for over a quarter of metropolitan complaints, there was less than one complaint per council. 

For non-metropolitan councils, if we exclude Port Hedland, which accounted for nearly 20% of regional complaints, there was one complaint for every three councils. 

These rates are hardly evidence of of systemic problem. Indeed, it could be argued that were the rates any lower it would be evidence that people didn't care sufficiently about local government. If anything, these rates are a strong suggestion that Melville and Port Hedland should be looked at much more closely for issues specific to them.

Even a 44% increase in such a small number is evidence of the axiom that "100% of very little is still very little" (usually expressed more bluntly than that) rather than anything else. There is not even any mention (nor was there in the LGSP report) of whether the 21 findings that a breach occurred was an increase on previous years, although this is surely a more important measure than the simple increase in the number of complaints.

Most important of all, the report (not to mention WALGA's reported response) ignores the fact only 17 of 82 complaints (just one per eight councils) came from the communities local councils serve. 

Source: Local Government Standards Panel Annual Report 2017-18 

WALGA's reported response, blaming newly-elected councillors being 'less aware of the rules of conduct' is pure supposition and appears to have more to do with WALGA's agenda to increase its influence by having mandatory training for all elected members than it has to do with the LGSP report itself.

The West Australian also fails to mention the stress imposed on the two-thirds of complained-against councillors where complaints were dismissed.

The Annual Report of the Local Government Standards Panel is available for download at http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/publications/tabledpapers.nsf/displaypaper/4011623a58e1eb7c0c121e964825830500335e4b/$file/1623.pdf

West Australian, 14 September 2018

-->

NOT Michael Sutherland for Perth

I am reminded by former Mt Lawley MLA, Michael Sutherland, standing for City of Perth Council that he once said to my daughter about me (when I was (successfully) campaigning against Barnett's local government so-called reform), that it would be better if I went away and played bowls. 

I might say the same about him, but that would be an insult to all those (young as well as old) who enjoy playing bowls - which obviously didn't bother Sutherland when he was suggesting that I "go away" and do so.

On the subject of insults (this time to electors of the City of Perth), what about truth in political advertising? 

Truth in Advertising: An Independent Voice?

Sutherland spruiks himself as "an independent voice", but he was a Liberal MLA before the last WA election and just a couple of months ago was seeking to be replacement Liberal senator for Chris Back who retired for family reasons. The fact that he invited Peta Credlin, the former chief of staff for ousted Liberal leader Tony Abbot, to Perth for a fundraiser at his Mt Lawley branch (http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/former-wa-liberal-doesnt-believe-peta-credlin-invite-will-damage-his-senate-bid-20170705-gx59ua.html) should tell us something about where he sits in the Liberal Party spectrum.

Unlike his inner city counterpart, Eleni Evangel (MLA for Perth, 2013-2017), Sutherland did not distance himself from the Liberal-One Nation preference deal. Whereas Ms Evangel said: "I do not support One Nation or their policies" and she had “no time whatsoever for intolerance or discrimination of any form". All Michael Sutherland is reported as saying was that he "did not believe the deal alienated voters". [http://www.communitynews.com.au/guardian-express/news/mt-lawley-and-perth-liberal-members-have-differing-views-on-preference-deal-with-one-nation]

Truth in Advertising: Will The Real Michael Sutherland Show Himself?

I don't normally comment on people's appearance (being no picture of sartorial elegance, myself), but, while on the subject of lack of truth in political advertising, compare the picture Sutherland is using for his facebook page (which appears to be the one used for lord knows how long while he was an MLA) with the reality revealed in his diatribe about homeless (mainly aboriginal) people and Wellington Square.

NSW: In Retreat, Confusion and Cost - and Property Developers Disown Their Own Baby

Yesterday, the good news (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2017/07/people-power-does-it-again.html).

Today, the fallout, in the form of confusion and costs.

The NSW Premier cites 'uncertainty' as the reason for backing down, but any uncertainty is entirely the making of the NSW Liberal government in trying to force council amalgamations for purely ideological reasons.

Now the about face, which could have been avoided by not embarking on this ideological farce in the first place, leaves many councils uncertain about their future. This includes councils that have, often unwillingly, embarked on the merger process. It will be particularly messy where one council opposed the merger or where mergers involved splitting council areas (see last para in the item below).

There is also the issue of cost. All affected councils will have had to spend a lot of rate[ayers' money on this aborted process - just as in Queensland and WA. Not unnaturally, these councils will want to recoup those costs from the state government - although in shifting the burden from ratepayers to taxpayers (and adding legal costs for seeking recoup through the courts), it is not clear that anyone wins - except the lawyers, of course.

And we should not be surprised that the property development industry, a prime mover in the 'bigger is better' ideology, is now backing away and blaming the NSW government for getting its process wrong!

http://www.governmentnews.com.au/2017/07/councils-first-clarity-now-confusion

Wipeout: Role of Forced Local Government Amalgamation Debacle

The count of the WA state election is not yet finalised, but it is clear that the Liberals have taken a hammering - so much so that, as Jessica Strutt has observed, hardly any (actually 3) of their lower house MPs have any experience of being in opposition. And of those, one has experience in Victoria not WA and another (Colin Barnett) is unlikely to stay very long.

There is already a lot of soul-searching among Liberals and comment (not really analysis) in the media, with common targets for blame being:
- the 'it's time' factor, coupled with Barnett's personal unpopularity
- the One-Nation preference deal
- the state's financial situation
- Roe 8/Perth Freight Link
- end of the mining boom
- Australia's highest unemployment
- failure of Barnett/Turnbull to address WA's GST return

All of these are important, but one thing has barely rated a mention and yet the decline in Liberal/Barnett fortunes can be traced back to it - that is the debacle of Barnett's local government so-called reform.

The duplicity of Barnett, having stated in the lead-up to the 2013 WA election that there would be no forced local government amalgamations and, moreover, forcing Tony Simpson into an embarrassing backdown after he stated that forced amalgamations were Liberal policy, kick-started a grass-roots protest that
- spread like wildfire across much of the metropolitan region, comparable to but more widespread than the Roe 8 protests;
- forced the Local Government Advisory Board to abandon all but one of the Minster for Local Government's proposals;
- resulted in three proposals being subject to binding polls that all resoundingly rejected forced amalgamations; and
- saw Barnett forced to backdown on all the amalgamations and, to use his words, "fly the white flag".

I attended many community meetings during that time and one common reaction was people's saying they had voted Liberal all their lives but would never vote Liberal at state level again.

And that is exactly what happened. As Antony Green has pointed out, a very large part of the precipitate fall in the Liberal primary vote went, not to protest parties such as One Nation, but directly to the ALP.

Look at the areas where the grass-roots protest movement really took hold (Kalamunda; Serpentine-Jarrahdale, Mundaring) and you will see a litany of seats previously held by the Liberals falling to Labor. From holding all of the hills seats, the Liberals now hold none.

Other areas (eg Cockburn; Kwinana) were already Labor but now look to be impregnable.

The seat of Perth (which includes most of the City of Vincent) has fallen back to Labor with a bang, no doubt mobilised by the highly-effective 'one-in, all-in' campaign initiated by then Mayor Alannah MacTiernan and strongly followed up by her successor (now member for Perth) John Carey. Barnett's intention to split the City of Vincent between Perth and Stirling and the strong community reaction against it no doubt put the seat of Perth from marginal Liberal to safe Labor.

Telling NSW What We Already Knew In WA

There's an intelligent and incisive assessment by Marie Samson in 'Government News' (http://www.governmentnews.com.au/2017/02/forced-council-mergers-nsw-government-got-wrong) of why forced local government amalgamations came such a cropper in NSW - all of which sounds horribly familiar to those of who were involved in the resistance in WA.

Indeed, coming so soon after the debacles in WA and Queensland, the NSW Government's 'bull-in-a-china-shop' approach can only be seen as a wilful and ideologically-driven refusal to learn from experience or to recognise facts.

An important issue raised in the assessment is clear identification of the roles of local and state governments. The government could have spoken about giving councils more scope and more political clout at state and federal level, rather than bypassing them with new agencies like Urban Growth and the Greater Sydney Commission. In essence, the state government is doing things that local government ought to be doing.

Sounds familiar to WA people fighting the oppressive and arbitrary decision-making of the State-sponsored Development Assessment Panels.

So, to make it easy-to-understand for any government thinking about local government amalgamations, here are the six key factors identified from the NSW experience:

n  Be clear and honest about your intentions from the start

n  Back them up with sufficient evidence and share this evidence

n  Engage closely with communities around what the benefits are to them

n  Listen to and act on residents’ concerns

n  Be consistent with your reasoning and apply it evenly and fairly

n  Build independence into the process, including drawing boundaries, engaging with communities and assessing proposals

Victory in NSW - But For Whom?

As reported in an earlier post (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2017/01/lest-we-forget-wa-parallels-in-nsw.html) drawing on reports in Government News, the Government of new NSW Premier, Gladys Berejiklian, has done an about face on some forced local government amalgamations.

Regional amalgamations will be abandoned, but the people of Sydney are not so lucky. Sydney communities whose councils have already been merged will not be given the opportunity to de-merge by plebiscite and those currently the subject of court action will depend upon the outcome of those actions.

As Keith Rhoades, President of Local Government NSW, has stated, this is clearly a political compromise that is likely to satisfy no-one (http://www.lgnsw.org.au/news/media-release/media-release-political-compromise-lost-opportunity).

However, there are some winners as well as the obvious losers. The National Party will welcome the decision as it will help them avoid further humiliations like the 2016 Orange by-election, where the Nationals lost to the Shooters and Fishers Party after having held the seat for 69 years (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-21/orange-by-election-won-by-shooters,-fishers-and-farmers-party/8043658),

The 'split-decision' (even, one might opine, schizophrenic decision) appears unlikely to help the NSW Government in Sydney electorates, where there is strong opposition to forced amalgamations, but there is one group that will be overjoyed by the continuation of previous decisions in the city.

Across Australia, the property development industry has been actively calling for and supporting forced local government amalgamations - it has also been substantially contributing to political party funds. Their interests, though, are not those of the communities within which they operate and upon which they have the greatest impacts. Larger councils, the property interests consider, are more likely to approve ultra-high-density developments that give them the greatest profits - partly because they will be more party-political but more because they are less able to give community-based scrutiny to complex development proposals.

http://www.governmentnews.com.au/2017/02/regional-council-mergers-halted-sydney-mergers-stand/?platform=hootsuite

Lest We Forget. WA Parallels in NSW?

Just in case there might be some truth in Col's hoping that voters have short memories, along comes NSW Premier Mike Baird's resignation, at least partly in response to a massive decline in popularity resulting from forced local government amalgamations.

Almost exactly two years ago, WA Premier Colin Barnett finally 'ran up the white flag' in response to widespread opposition to his proposed forced local council mergers.

The immediate cause in NSW might be more specific than those causing Col Pot's retreat in WA in 2015, but the result could be the same - victory for community and commonsense.

There is still much water to flow under this particular bridge, but even such speculation is heartening.

I urge the people of WA not to forget Barnett's perfidy in trying to force council amalgamations despite having ruled them out in the previous election. March 11, 2017, is our opportunity to make him and his government pay for lying to us and wasting so much of our time, effort, money and emotional energy in making him see reason.

http://www.governmentnews.com.au/2017/01/deliverance-will-new-nsw-premier-smash-council-mergers-de-merge-others/?platform=hootsuite

Democracy Must Be Seen But Not Heard - Let's think outside the box

According to the ABC (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-10/new-local-government-minister-backs-media-gag-on-councillors/7919614), new Local Government Minister Paul Miles has backed the City of Perth's controversial ban on councillors speaking to the media, describing the policy as "democratic".

I guess we shouldn't be surprised coming from the same party (and presumably with the same Departmental advice) as his predecessor's description of the right of local communities to have a binding poll on local government amalgamations as "UNdemocratic" (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/a-peculiar-view-of-democracy.html).

Miles also reportedly said that councillors "had nothing to complain about because they knew, or should have known, the council's position when they sought election". 

The only possible interpretation of this baffling statement is that councillors cannot lobby for change from within and residents or ratepayers can only do so from without - and somehow have to get a majority of Council to see the light (definitely problematic with most of current City of Perth Council) and change policy without councillors themselves being able to say anything to gain awareness or support through the media.

How can it be democratic, Mr Miles, to place such a Catch-22 in the way of reform?

Thinking outside the box, though, the City of Perth policy doesn't prevent councillors from discussing matters with private individuals - and we all know how adept the media are at eavesdropping on and reporting private conversations. I suggest it would be very difficult (and politically counter-productive) to prove that a councillor knew the media were going to eavesdrop on a particular 'private' conversation.

And, yet again, WALGA appears to be conspicuous by its absence - despite the very real implicit threat that a similar ban could be imposed on all local governments in the name of democracy.

Minister Simpson Resigns - No Confidence in Barnett

I've been away from this blog for several months, largely due to illness, but I couldn't let Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson's, resignation from Cabinet, on the grounds that he no longer had confidence in Premier Colin Barnett's leadership, pass without comment.

Readers of this blog (and the more recent one dealing with the City of Perth Act) will know that I have been very critical of Simpson in his role as Local Government Minister. 

In retrospect, however, it is unclear how much of the local government so-called reform (aka forced amalgamation) fiasco was Simpson being malicious and how much his simply being unable to stand up to Barnett. Certainly the fatuous and false 'economies of scale' argument came from Col's half-baked economics - I commented more than once that he must have attended the lecture on economies of scale but skipped the next one on diseconomies of scale. 

Simpson was often the scapegoat for Col's ignorance and intransigence.

Even so, Simpson cannot be held blameless, as he should have stood up to Col - that was the time to resign - but, in fairness, he was too new a minister for resignation to have had much effect.

Simpson has performed much better and more consistently in his other portfolios of Community Services, Seniors and Volunteering, and Youth, but these are not high profile ones and he has got little public recognition from them.

Col's predictable and rather puerile response was that Simpson's resignation provided an opportunity for someone else to be a Minister - as if the Government benches in Parliament were brimming with talent. Whoever gets the gig, we can only hope that their tenure will be short-lived.

Responsibility Of Ownership Lost On Lisa, It Seems

In yet another apparent demonstration of the need for mandatory elected member education,Perth Lord Mayor, Lisa Scaffidi, apparently doesn't see any link between property ownership and responsibility to the community.

 

Perth Voice, 23rd January 2016

Lies and Fallacies - In NSW This Time

I often don't agree with the reported views of NSW radio presenter Alan Jones, but on local government forced amalgamations he is spot on. 

I've just watched the video of his address to the rally in Sydney with a total sense of deja vu (not to mention vindication) as he was saying all the same things we said here in WA in our successful community-based campaign against forced local government amalgamations - including lies ('no forced amalgamations' before the election) and fallacious arguments ('economies of scale'). 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soxRTTFPgDM&feature=youtu.be

Another one bites the dust - but will Simpson keep him on?

I don't know whether Mel Congerton was a good councillor for City of Swan, but he certainly compromised the independence of the Local Government Advisory Board in the local government so-called reform process.

The question is whether Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, will keep him as Chair of the LGAB now that he has been defeated by the now-youngest councillor in the Metropolitan area. Under the Local Government Act, the Minister's nomination to the LGAB, who is required to be the Chair of the board, is not required to be an elected member of a local government.

And will WALGA have a view on this?

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/29853911/younger-faces-take-places-on-councils

Totally predictable - but real culprit is NSW state government

Essentially same story as in WA - but equally flawed.

So-called independent report - but conclusions inevitable given years of rate-capping and cost-shifting by NSW state governments.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-20/most-nsw-councils-not-fit-for-future-ipart-finds/6868348

First Brick Falls Out of the City of Perth Wall

Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, acts to prevent Lord Mayor guilty of misconduct from judging others accused of misconduct. No-brainer, but good to see.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-13/perth-lord-mayor-removed-from-local-government-standards-panel/6851386

Is Time Running Out for Out-Of-Touch Perth City Council?

It's getting increasingly difficult to see how the City of Perth Council can emerge unscathed and functioning after these revelations.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-12/review-of-perth-city-council-may-be-needed-minister/6847238

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/29788660/state-government-to-review-perth-city-council

As in WA, so in NSW - and so the sorry saga continues

Needs no commentary from me (at least for those in WA who have already been through this - and won, thanks to people power).

A few quotes suffice to show that state government try the same tricks wherever you are.

NSW councils have long argued that rate-pegging, cost-shifting and freezing the indexation of Financial Assistance Grants have constrained their revenues, while simultaneously slugging them with bigger bills for infrastructure and services.

He said that the state government had not provided good evidence mergers would benefit councils financially, apart from promising access to cheaper loans, which would still need to be repaid.

The Minister is being incredibly duplicitous: using a longstanding funding problem as cover for an ideologically-driven move to increase control over local communities and neighbourhoods.

And it isn't even in the interests of the party of Government:

State Premier Mike Baird’s amalgamation drive is causing all sorts of problems for Liberal MPs, who fear a backlash from the branches that elected them and from the general public.

http://www.governmentnews.com.au/2015/10/council-peak-body-gives-nsw-government-minister-a-serve

Transparency and Integrity in City of Perth

Reece Harley either knew something was in the wind - or he should go out and buy a lottery ticket, for his decision to campaign on transparency and integrity is paying-off big-time - particularly now Deputy Lord Mayor, Rob Butler, has been caught in the non-disclosure net (http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/deputy-lord-mayor-of-perth-rob-butler-fails-to-declare-trip-to-malaysia/news-story/c40b9303dff3c2fbe9e9c612fb54e4d8) and the other seven City of Perth councillors (other than Reece Harley) have publicly fallen in behind the Lord Mayor who is under a personal cloud.

And for those who missed it on Thursday, here (at foot of this post) is Daniel Emerson's forensic analysis of the issue and the Lord Mayor's responses to the Crime and Corruption Commission's findings.

http://www.reeceharleyforperth.com.au/media. Click to enlarge.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/29756163/scaffidi-wins-obfuscation-gold

Strange Day - Now I Agree With Simpson

Regular and long-time readers of this blog will be aware that I have a long-running and fundamental difference of view with both Premier Colin Barnett and Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, on local government matters. So it is with some trepidation that I follow my agreement earlier today with Col (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/i-agree-with-col-pity-col-doesnt.html) with an agreement with Tony Simpson.

According to the ABC (below): 

Local Government Minister Tony Simpson stopped short of saying Ms Scaffidi should resign, but said a member of Cabinet who acted in the same way would be sacked.

The ABC also reported that:

Mr Simpson flagged changes to annual returns in the local government sector including that they be lodged more frequently and be made more accessible to the public.

I agree, but it is only a couple of months since local governments refused to take an opportunity to support doing just that (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/rocks-in-their-heads.html), so local councils will now be on the back foot and the Minister has the high moral ground.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-07/lord-mayor-scaffidi-unable-to-release-in-information-defence/6833886