Just Two Days Later…

Only two days after my drawing attention to the sinister implications of being able to build houses and (yes!) hotels on the Swan River (as well as Kings Park and other iconic Perth locations) in the new WA version of monopoly, it's already happening.

Not a 'floating hotel' perhaps, but certainly one that sits out over the water.

And who now speaks for the interests of the river? Well, six months ago when the previous application was rejected, it was the Swan River Trust. Less than a week ago, it was reported that the SRT was being abolished and absorbed into a new parks and wildlife department.

Interestingly (in the sense of the ancient Chinese curse - "may you live in interesting times"), whereas both a public service department and the Trust are/were subject to direction by their minister, the Trust had to publish any such directions in its Annual Report. You don't often see a government department publicise the fact that it had been directed by its Minister to make a contentious decision.

Barnett's Secret Agenda Revealed

Whereas the earlier versions of Monopoly use streets or suburbs for locations, the Perth version released today is based on other types of locations. So go to it Sandgropers, you can now build houses and hotels on Kings Park, Cottesloe Beach (well, that seems already to be happening) and Scarborough Beach (ditto) and Rottnest Island (watch those development proposals for Rotto!). And UWA is set to make a killing by selling off 'surplus' land to players or simply charging other players for the privilege of being there (wait, though, isn't that already happening to students?).

And presumably we are set to have houseboats and floating hotels on the Swan River.

Note that 'railroads' includes Perth Buses, Perth Trains, Perth Ferries and Perth Airport. So forget the rail link to the airport (it was never a very good idea anyway) and hop on the (almost non-existent) Transperth bus to the airport, where you'll be able to catch the Greyhound bus to wherever you want to go - as long as it isn't overseas.

Alternatively, just a small deviation to the existing interstate rail line could make Perth Airport the WA destination for the Indian Pacific train - just a few of those airline passengers could help increase the frequency of the Indian-Pacific from its current poxy one train a week (well, twice a week for September and October, perhaps to cash in on the footy finals) - for one of the Great Train Journeys of the World?

You might think all that's a bit far-fetched - now - but just wait. Remember, you read it here first.

Q: When Is A Deadline Not A Deadline?

Answer: When you're not the getting the 'enthusiastic' support you were looking for?

The timetable advertised back in July clearly stated that October 4th was the 'deadline for local government submissions to LGAB'. Just a week ago, Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, in a letter to Mayors, reminded local governments that they had been invited to submit proposals to the Local Government Advisory Board by 4 October 2013.

How, then, can the LGAB Chair say 'on the weekend' (5/6 October) that he believed more proposals were still to be lodged with the Board? Does this indicate that he considers local Councils so inefficient that they miss a clearly-stated deadline? Or is it that there is lobbying to encourage Councils that are either supportive or at least not strongly against the Government's proposals to make a late submission to make the balance of support/opposition look 'better'?

Mind you, we've already seen the September timeline for introduction of legislation to amend the Local Government Act (to remove the electors' right of veto - although the official timetable doesn't actually state that this is what the amendment is about) go by the board because the Premier can't get the support of his party room.

Incidentally, I make the number of Councils making submissions to be 19 not 18. Perhaps the LGAB's arithmetic is on a par with the arguments for amalgamations (most of which we have never seen).

There are 18 actual proposals (two joint ones and Cambridge has put in two), but 19 Councils.

Don't Waste Your Vote

The Weekend West, 5th September, 2013

It seems that some people are not following the instructions on the postal ballot envelopes - this means that their votes are wasted.

Postal voting can seem complex, but the main thing to remember is to ensure that all your ballot papers (including the plebiscite in Vincent) are in the ballot paper envelope, that you sign and date the flap on that envelope and then place it in the addressed reply-paid envelope to mail to the Returning Officer.

Be very sure that you sign and date the flap on the ballot paper envelope and do not remove it - this flap is the evidence that yours is a valid vote and is akin to having your name crossed off the electoral roll at an in-person election.

As Chris Evans, Acting WA Electoral Commissioner, is reported as saying, this is a landmark poll for many Councils and it is vital that votes are not wasted.

If you think you are too late to have your mailed ballot papers received by 6pm on election day (Saturday 19 October, which effectively means Friday 18th October), or you simply don't trust Australia Post, you can hand-deliver the envelope to an electoral officer at the offices of the local government during office hours before election day or the polling place (City of Vincent Administration Centre, cnr Vincent and Loftus Streets, Leederville, in the case of Vincent - follow the gaze of the blue head) between 8.00am and 6.00pm on election day (19th October).

Hubris for the History Books

This piece in The West Australian today, about the splitting of a State in India prompts me to ask the rhetorical question: What would Die Führer's reaction be if the Federal Government were to say it was going to split WA? perhaps because the Pilbara and Kimberley have more in common with the Northern Territory than with the southern parts of WA. Or because the Northern Territory needs more resources to be viable.

Now, I know that there are constitutional reasons why this couldn't happen without a referendum. But why, Col, are you set on denying us the right to have a similar say in respect of your proposed changes to local government?

What are you scared of? If your proposals are so good and in all our long-term interests, surely you should be able to convince sufficient of us of their value and ride to victory and into the history books.

As it is, you will slide into the history books as an exemplar of hubris, a loss of contact with reality and over-estimation of one's own abilities and competence.

Minister Retreats To Bunker

Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, 'did not respond to inquiries' relating to the clear opposition to his and Col Pot's forced amalgamation 'proposals'. Yet he can hardly claim that the responses were unexpected as all of the individual Council responses (or non-responses) have been clearly flagged for some time and, unlike the Government's proposals, have been agreed to in public forums (ie Council meetings).

Little wonder, then, that many local governments (not to mention many of us in the community) have 'lost faith in the process'.

Perhaps he just hopes our loss of faith is so great that if he ignores us we will go away. Well, I've got news for you and your boss, Tony - we're not going away until you consign this poxy pseudo-policy to the dustbin of history where it belongs.

Love the Pun - But It Ain't Funny

Or I could have called this 'Yet Another Broken Promise'. Not that it was quite a promise, but nothing was said in the election campaign about abolishing the Swan River Trust.

And, as a local councillor for over 14 years, I have seen at first hand the cost-shifting that state and federal governments (of both political persuasions) have been up to in the past couple of decades - and this could well be another example. Does Bassendean/Bayswater need a slice of Stirling to help it pay for a larger share of river-related works that Barnett intends to foist on it?

Perth Voice, Saturday 5th October, 2013

Now, There's a Surprise!

The City of Perth Council has formally rejected taking in all of the City of Vincent - no surprise there after recent statements and events. Congratulations, though, to Cr Jim Adamos for at least bringing some logic into the debate in contrast to the 'cherry-picking' approach demonstrated by the Lord Mayor and other City of Perth councillors.

Now, we all need to consider very carefully what this means for the City of Vincent Plebiscite. Colin Barnett has said all of Vincent could go to Perth if the two councils could agree - clearly they cannot. So the only way forward is with a strong vote in favour of not abolishing the City of Vincent (Question 2). As regards Question 1, it now appears to be largely academic, but logic dictates we should still favour the option that keeps all of Vincent together - and stuff the City of Perth and whether it wants all of us or not.

Perth Voice, Saturday 5th October, 2013

Lisa Doesn't Like People Power

Lisa Scaffidi, Lord Mayor of Perth, obviously considers what we in the community think is of no importance - it's all about the bureaucrats and a small number of Council members. 

I am very pleased to see Acting Vincent Mayor, John Carey, giving the lie to Scaffidi's arrogant assertion that you can't do due diligence at the same time as involving the community. I love the vernacular he uses, too - chewing gum and walking at the same time. I guess that sums up the difference between Vincent and Perth - our diversity enables us to multi-task, whereas Perth is all about big business.

Perth Voice, Saturday 5th October 2013

Be warned, members of the Vincent community, this is the sort of approach you'll get to community involvement if we end up in the City of Perth. Vote to retain Vincent in the Plebiscite.

Time To Make Our Collective Mark

This is not an official ballot paper.
The ticks show how I shall be voting.
How you vote will be known only to you.

City of Vincent Council Election and, importantly, Plebiscite ballot papers have started arriving in our mailboxes. As I have previously mentioned on this blog, the plebiscite might be the only real opportunity we get to make our views about the proposed abolition of the City of Vincent clear and unambiguous.

So, whether or not you would normally choose to vote in the Council Election, please vote in the plebiscite. Although the results of the plebiscite are not binding in the way that a vote under Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act would be, if we can get the magic 50% elector turnout it will send an extremely powerful message to Colin Barnett.

Colin Barnett has stated his intention to remove our right to vote on local government amalgamation proposals, although he does seem to be running into increasing opposition from his own party as well as from the communities he seeks to disenfranchise, so this might be your only opportunity to stand up for Vincent and the future of the Vincent community.

If, like me, you would prefer to keep the City of Vincent as it is, then place a tick in the 'No' box for Question 2.

If Vincent were to be abolished, however, as Colin Barnett has threatened, Question 1 allows you to say whether you prefer keeping the Vincent community together in the City of Perth or his model of splitting between Perth and Stirling, effectively destroying the community we have built up over the past two decades.

PS. I'm sure it's not deliberate, but the Plebiscite ballot paper is a little larger than the Councillor or Mayor election ballot papers. However, it will go in the envelope with a bit of pushing and shoving!

Another Barnett Broken Promise

Here we go again. Clear evidence of an election commitment - but now no interest from Die Führer. This is not just a matter of cost to the grain growers, it goes to the heart of sustainable transport (and hence, sustainable regional communities) for Western Australia.

David and Goliath Revisited

There is an interesting piece in the UK Guardian newspaper today describing how the source of the biblical Goliath's size and strength could well have been a serious medical condition called acromegaly, a disease caused by a benign tumour of the pituitary gland. One of the common side-effects of acromegaly is vision problems.

Thus, the Israelites saw an intimidating giant, but the very thing that gave the giant his size was also the source of a great weakness. Malcolm Gladwell in the Guardian, goes on to observe that there is an important lesson for battles with all kinds of giants. The powerful and the strong are not always what they seem.

The successful Davids of this world don't play by the rules expected by the Goliaths. Colin Barnett expected the community ('the little people' as he probably calls us, with scarcely-disguised disdain - not to mention unintended irony) to get so caught up in the many non-sensical details of the proposals for local government changes and his broken promise of 'no forced amalgamations' that we would have neither the energy nor the resources to convert our anger at his proposed perversion of the democratic process into effective action.

What the emperor failed (and still fails) to grasp is that there are literally thousands of us out there who will sling the stones that will fell his grand designs. He has to hold most of the Liberal parliamentarians to his side, whereas we only have to get a few of them to support the democratic rights of their electors - and hence their chances at the next election.

The stones that we sling will be logical arguments made fiery by anger and indignation.

And we all know what happened to Goliath after he was felled by David's stone, don't we!

Précis of Premier's Pillaging

This letter from last week's Subiaco Post speaks for itself and speaks volumes in the process.

Community Gives Voice to Anger

In the heartland of what would be the Western Suburbs mega-council according to Emperor Col, 70-80 mainly Subiaco residents met at the Onslow Park Tennis Club this evening to express their anger at what was being forced on them by a Premier who promised he wouldn't do forced local government amalgamations. They were joined by Heather Henderson, Mayor of Subiaco, and Max Hipkins, Mayor of Nedlands, whose Council last night, at a Special Council Meeting, took the unprecedented step of withdrawing from the WA Local Government Association in protest because it doesn't believe that WALGA is acting in the interests of local government.

Several speakers prefaced their remarks by saying they were lifelong Liberal voters (although one did say he once voted for Bob Hawke) but were devastated by the proposal to remove the Dadour Amendment from the Local Government Act, effectively removing the democratic right of people to determine how they should be governed.

A motion was passed unanimously to oppose any moves to amend, remove or dilute the provisions of the so-called Dadour Amendment.

The meeting was predictably orderly, but there was a real sense of anger at what was being done to local governments and their communities. The more Liberal voters can get the message to their state members of Parliament in the next couple of weeks, the less likely it is that the Dadour Amendment will go - as those Liberal members see their majorities disappearing at the next election.

So write to your members of Parliament in the next week or so. Write to all members of the WA Parliament, if you can. Express your anger at the possible removal or reduction of your only real protection in the Local Government Act.

MPs' contact details are at http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/parliament/memblist.nsf/WAllMembers?openform.

Bullies Can Be Beaten

Bullies can be made to back down, as the latest development in the Gina Rinehart family trust saga demonstrates.

But it does take time. It does take a dedicated opposition. And it does take resources.

The Rinehart family battle gave a lot of money to lawyers.

The community opposition to Colin Barnett's anti-democratic amalgamation of local governments and removal of our right of veto does not have pots of money - but we do have lots of votes. So let's get out there and make our parliamentary representatives, especially those in the Liberal Party, well and truly aware that their tenure in Parliament will be short-lived if they support removal of our democratic rights.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/19199846/the-day-gina-rinehart-finally-blinked

And it will not only be Gina Rinehart "on trial over claims of gross misconduct and dishonesty". Colin Barnett (and his lackey Tony Simpson) will find themselves in that particular dock, as well, at least in the court of public opinion.

Nedlands Dissents

I have written here several times that part of Colin Barnett's strategy is to create discord in local government and then come in as the 'white knight'. The City of Nedlands has broken ranks with WALGA because it doesn't believe that WALGA is truly acting in the interests of local government.

Whatever the truth of it - and WALGA President Troy Pickard's links with the Liberal Party were apparent in WALGA's early insipid response - all of us need to be careful that discord doesn't lead to weakness. Diversity of view and of strategy can be very powerful, but discord can be debilitating.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-02/nedlands-council-pulls-out-of-walga/4993046?section=wa

Protest Against Removal of Democratic Veto Gathering Momentum

There is a public meeting tonight (Wednesday 2nd October, 7.30pm) at the Onslow Park Tennis Club. This has been organised by Subiaco residents but the issue is much bigger than that - it affects all of us. So, if you're concerned at this erosion of democracy, come along tonight. 

Subiaco Post, 28th September 2013. Click to enlarge

Subiaco Post, 28th September 2013. Click to enlarge

The Onslow Park Tennis Club is on Onslow Road, Shenton Park - see map below - it's on the north side of Rosalie Park on the opposite side of Thomas Street from Kings Park.

All Glitter and No Substance

Guardian Express, 2nd October, 2013. Click to enlarge

Lots of pretty colours on the façade of Council House - but no substance to what goes on within.

The Council agenda report and its submission on the local government amalgamations are full of weasel words designed to cover up the fact that it is intent on 'cherry-picking' Vincent's assets.

Alternative to Bottled Water - At Last

Guardian Express, 2nd October, 2013

Back on 18th December 2007, Vincent Council endorsed my notice of motion to minimise the use of bottled water at Council functions and activities, because of the financial and environmental cost of plastic bottles. On 26th February, 2008, officers provided a plan of action that broadly supported the motion but noted that there would be adverse effects on Beatty Park revenue which meant that alternatives would need further investigation.

I am extremely pleased to see that at last, five and a half years later, these investigations have finally borne fruit.

Yet Another Demonstration of Ignorance - or Disdain

It is 1st October, 2013 - just three days before local Councils have to submit responses to the Barnett/Simpson 'proposals' for local government amalgamations. The Department of Local Government puts out yet another 'Local Government Reform Update' which says:
Residents can have their say now by forwarding their views to their own local government to help it prepare its submission to the Local Government Advisory Board.

Does the Department (and its Minister) have so little understanding of local government processes that it thinks there is still time for individual input to Council responses?

Any response has to be endorsed at a Council Meeting and meeting dates (and agendas for meetings) have to be prepared and published in advance. Papers for any Council Meeting to be held before 4th October have already been prepared and circulated to elected members and available to the community.

Vincent and Perth approved their submissions on Tuesday 24th September.

Bayswater Council came out publicly in support of its proposed amalgamation long before the community had any real opportunity to influence it.

So don't try to wrap this up in terms of a democratic opportunity at this stage.

The real opportunity will come when the proposals are formally considered by the Local Government Advisory Board - each and every one of us can make an individual submission to the LGAB. If enough of us do so, it will make a nonsense of the published timetable for amalgamations, as the LGAB couldn't possibly properly consider thousands and thousands of submissions in the time that has been allowed.