We, The Community, Are Not The Only Ones Affected

As the article below from the October issue of the Journal of the Local Government Managers Association cogently argues, council staff are at least as likely to be adversely affected by forced amalgamations as is the community.

Council staff will often be the meat in the amalgamation sandwich - let's not make their jobs any more difficult than we have to.

http://localgovernmentmanager.lgma.org.au/#folio=10

http://localgovernmentmanager.lgma.org.au/#folio=11

Palmer Prefers Incompetence to Truth

The only possible interpretation I can put on Clive Palmer's rant about the Australian Electoral Commission and the lengthy recount for the Senate in WA that could see his candidate 'de-elected' is that he would prefer his candidate to be elected on the basis of an 'incompetent' count than getting the result to reflect the true intentions of the WA voters.

No wonder that politicians and wanabe politicians have credibility and respect problems.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/19576679/palmer-fury-at-senate-recount-confusion

Truth Will Out

So now we have it - from the horse's mouth, as it were. They're all at it! At least, all MPs will be tainted by Don Randall's assertions unless there is more honesty on the issue of expenses.

Unapologetic Don Randall (he who will not see) spills the beans and tells us that "MPs on both sides of politics had sympathised with him privately since the scandal broke on the grounds that he had 'taken the heat' off their similar conduct".

Well, here's a suggestion, how about those MPs who have sympathised 'privately' in this way 'fess up and let the great unwashed of the Australian electorate pass judgment on their behaviour.

Perils of Parallel Walks

It is a pity that Main Roads seems so fixated on journey times for motorists, to the detriment of pedestrians ('Faster lights make for quicker trips', West Australian, 25th October). It would be interesting to see an assessment of pedestrian crossing times with parallel walk phases in the city where these have replaced the previous 'scramble' crossings.

But the greater problem with parallel walks is outside the heavy traffic areas of the Perth CBD, where the time given to pedestrians is totally inadequate. Often, a pedestrian is unable even to reach the middle of the road before the signal for motor vehicles turns green.

Perth drivers, being as they are, seem to be incapable of observing that there is a pedestrian crossing the road or, if they do, they expect him/her to stop in the middle of the road rather than completing the crossing. 

It is not just left-turning drivers, either. Right-turning drivers are likely to be looking for a gap in the oncoming traffic and take advantage of that gap when it occurs, often irrespective of whether there is a pedestrian crossing the road they are turning into.

My grandchildren and whoever is accompanying them have to cross two legs of a nearby intersection on their way to school every day and I have lost count of the number of times drivers have failed to see them. On one occasion, I was physically assaulted by the driver of a car after I failed to scamper out of the way when he drove at me.

The solution is simple - extend the time for pedestrians before traffic gets a green light. Allowing for reaction time (to observe the green pedestrian light), the pedestrian time needs to be at least ten seconds rather the current four to give all pedestrians (including children, the elderly and those with disabilities) a sensible time to cross a four-lane road.

At places like this, it's not as though such an increase would have a huge impact on driver travel times, as the traffic usually clears in a single phase and the pedestrian phase is not used every time. And drivers are quite likely to catch the red at the next set of signals anyway.

There's None So Blind As He Who Will Not See

Just when I thought it was safe to give Colin Barnett a bit if praise, for once, on pollies with snouts in the trough, he turns round and shows me to be wrong. What he really meant, presumably, was that it is wrong for individual politicians to claim money they weren't entitled to - but there's nothing wrong with a political party benefiting from a decision made by one of its members - especially when the Premier has 'plausible deniability'.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/19514796/barnett-unfazed-by-nats-donation-from-sage

No Surprise in Barnett's Ruling Out Compulsory Voting

No surprise here, in view of Barnett's statement a couple of weeks ago that he intended to remodel the so-called Dadour provision of the Local Government Act so that anyone who didn't vote was actually counted as being in favour of the amalgamation proposal being voted on. Heavens above! If they were actually made to vote, they might express their real preference and vote against the Government's wishes.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-22/compulsory-local-government-voting-ruled-out-again/5037708?&section=news

Don't Write Off Dadour Vote

Although the low local government election turnout might seem to be a danger for application of the Dadour provisions, I wouldn't be too disheartened. As I wrote here yesterday, there are many reasons why electors might have chosen not to vote. Some of these apply to the immediate situation of negativity towards local government and wouldn't necessarily apply to a Dadour vote where the issue is a long-term one.

There will be people (dare I say the silent majority) who are quite happy with their local government or, at the very least, prefer 'the devil they know' to 'the devil they don't'. There is so much uncertainty about the working of the forced-amalgamated councils - and the evidence is mounting that larger councils are not more efficient and are not well-regarded by their communities - that many will prefer the status quo.

It will, of course, be interesting to see how Colin Barnett interprets the weekend's voting. If he really believes that the changes are in the best interests of communities, he should be able to convince us and leave the Dadour provisions alone.

Why The Low Turnout?

Much will no doubt be made of the low turnout in the WA Local Government elections, but before Colin Barnett jumps in to claim that the cause is disenchantment with local governments that would be magically overcome by his proposed forced amalgamations he should consider these points:

- The WA Government itself has been directly responsible for causing much of any disenchantment through its campaign of vilification of 'small' local governments.

- The lowest voting rates were in the largest local governments.

- Some (many?) people would have said to themselves, "What's the point in voting when my local Council will be abolished or changed beyond recognition in less than two years?"

- Plebiscites in Vincent and Mosman Park produce resounding majorities in favour of keeping their existing local Councils intact and against the WA Governments amalgamations.

Vincent

Mosman Park

Electors Want To Keep Vincent

Apart from the low turnout (below 30%), which reflected the overall election for Vincent, the plebiscite was a substantial vote for retaining the City of Vincent (Q2 - 77%) but if Vincent is to be abolished then electors overwhelmingly prefer the Vincent Council's model of the whole of Vincent going into Perth (Q1 - nearly 90%) to the City of Perth or State Government model of splitting Vincent between Perth and Stirling.

Let's hope this causes Colin Barnett to rethink his ill-considered forced amalgamations of local government.

And congratulations to John Carey, overwhelmingly elected as Vincent Mayor (87% of the vote); to Matt Buckels and Josh Topelberg on being re-elected as Councillors and to Emma Cole and Laine McDonald  on being elected for the first time.

The next two years will be a difficult time for Vincent Council. I hope elected members know that they have the strong support of the community in attempting to keep Vincent in one piece.

Split and Mix Challenges - Issues of Process and Priority

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-19/kwinana-council/5033288?&section=news

There are some challenges looming for the Local Government Advisory Board given the number of conflicting proposals and, in particular, ones that involve splitting an existing local government.

For example, the Kwinana proposal mentioned here requires that the remainder of Cockburn be merged with another Council.

In the case of Vincent, the Premier has stated that he wants the City of Perth proposal to be dealt with first, but that would leave a large part of Vincent left out - and less likely to be viable, given that the jewels would have been pirated by the City of Perth. So the LGAB cannot assess the City of Perth proposal without effectively requiring (and prejudging) that something else be done with the remainder of Vincent.

And yet there is no proposal from a local government that deals with this. Vincent wants the whole of the City to go into the City of Perth, if abolition of Vincent goes ahead. Stirling has submitted a proposal that does not include any of Vincent.

And if the State Government wants to try to sort this out by making its own proposals to the LGAB, it will be on shaky ground. Once local Councils have made proposals to the LGAB, the Board is bound to deal with them according to process, including formal inquiry with a 6-week opportunity for public submissions, set out in Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act.

In terms of natural justice, the LGAB would need to deal with the Councils' proposals before any 'consolidated proposals' from the State Government.

Moreover, the LGAB may only consider a second proposal in respect of an area if that proposal is not "substantially similar to a proposal on which the Board has made a recommendation to the Minister within the period of 2 years immediately before the proposal is made".

Credit Where Credit's Due

Readers of this blog will be in no doubt that I don't like a lot of what Colin Barnett does nor how he goes about doing it. But there is always the exception - and his reported statement on MPs claiming expenses they are not entitled to is one that I and, I would hope, most people would support.

Contrast this with the 'head in the sand' approach that Tony Abbott appears to be taking federally - although I'm not sure that you can have your head in the sand when your snout's in the trough.

It seems that Don Randall and others who have been caught out lately take the view that, in the words emblazoned on my lawyer daughter's T-shirt, "It's only illegal if you get caught" - and even then they add the caveat that it isn't really illegal if you agree to pay back the money.

Ah! If only life were so simple for the rest of us.

A Case Of Mistaken Identity

I thank Reece Harley for phoning me to apologise for misattributing the remark about City of Perth Councillors being afraid of having to doorknock if they were to have 22,000 extra voters.

He makes a very valid point that it is difficult to doorknock people who live in secure apartment complexes.

But the comment from John Carey was, I believe, aimed at current City of Perth Councillors - they are the ones who have decided they only want the asset-rich, not the people-rich, parts of Vincent. Reece is a fresh voice seeking election and might well have a different view.

Whilst secure complexes are on the increase in Vincent, they are not yet an excuse for the lack of candidate visibility that has characterised this election in Vincent. I live in the South Ward, where there are eight candidates standing for election to two vacancies, but I have only received any election material from one candidate and only seen anything other than a 'vote for me' ad in the Perth Voice about a small number of others.

So, despite my high hopes for a high voter turnout for the plebiscite, the low turnout so far is perhaps not surprising, as candidates don't seem to be very interested in getting elected.

Only A Short Time Left To Vote

With all the activity in Vincent around the proposed forced local government changes, it's disappointing that less than 30% of electors have so far returned their completed ballot papers (including the all-important plebiscite. There's only a few days left to make your voice heard, so vote soon, if you haven't already, and encourage your family, friends and neighbours to vote.

https://www.elections.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/lg-elections/documents/2013%20Ordinary%20Election%20election%20packages.pdf
Click to enlarge

Stirling Doesn't Want Us, Either - but shows a bit of respect

At least the City if Stirling has a reason for not doing that gives us some respect. I don't know why they're so scared of the debt of Beatty Park as it is a long-term viable proposition, but I do understand that they would be peeved at being forced to give up the Terry Tyzak Centre on which they'd spent millions in refurbishment.

But the key thing that differentiates Stirling from Perth is the acknowledgment that Vincent residents don't want to be split between Perth and Stirling. Stirling Mayor, David Boothman, is quoted as saying: "We cannot ignore the views of the Vincent community…" - we can only hope that Colin Barnett takes the same view after the plebiscite that is currently under way.

Guardian Express, 15th October, 2013

Amalgamation Supporters Still Want To Be Able To Vote

Thanks to Malcolm Mummery, Convenor of the Dadour Group, for the link to this item. I particularly like the fact that those people who support amalgamations still want to be able to have a vote on them.

Click this text to watch video

Who Says Bigger Is Better? Not the Community of Noosa

Slipping under the radar - perhaps because it predates the current fracas in Perth - the people of Noosa have been freed from the forced amalgamation into the Sunshine Coast - after an overwhelming 80% vote in favour of de-amalgamation.

I am reminded of what Janette Sadik Khan, New York Transport Commissioner, said recently: The proof is not in the computer model, it is in the real world performance…". Well, the people of Noosa have road-tested the big local government model, compared it with their previous experience, and decided that it doesn't perform for them.

Interesting that this de-amalgamation, recognising the strong views of the community, is under a Liberal state government that is generally regarded as at least as arrogant as that of Colin Barnett here in WA.

Missing the Message?

Lots of fuss (not to mention hot air - however justified) about the pollies' expenses scandals - over which I have a distinct sense of déjà vu, having been in England a lot over the past year or two.

But what, I wonder, is a good Catholic like Tony Abbott doing promoting the Mormons (aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints)?

Come to that, why is he, as Prime Minister (or as Opposition Leader if it's an old picture), acting as a billboard promoting Cadbury over any other brand of chocolate or Pfizer over any other drug manufacturer or Amgen over any other biotech company?

PS I now know that this was, for the companies at least, to do with their sponsorship of Pollie Pedal, Abbott's annual charity fund-raiser which he runs in conjunction with Carers Australia. Good cause, no doubt, but the point still remains that politicians should not be seen to be 'billboards for hire'. And what about conflict of interest if any of these companies wants or is affected by a decision of government?

More Anti-Democratic Moves by Barnett

Click to enlarge

In yet another assault on democracy, Colin Barnett is apparently now proposing, in effect, that all those who do not vote against local government boundary change proposals are in favour of them.

This conflicts with one of the fundamental principles of democratic voting systems, which is that the result is determined by those voting - not by those who do not vote. This is so whether we have first-past-the-post or preferential voting systems.

People may choose not to vote for reasons other than being against a proposal, including their not having strong views either way on the matter. There is also the matter of people being unable to vote for reasons beyond their control.

And we know from experience that a proportion of those who do not vote would, in any case, have cast invalid votes if they had voted.

If Barnett is genuinely concerned to make sure the voices of all electors are heard in the process, then voting in local government elections and referenda should be compulsory - don't simply assume that those who do not vote are of a particular point of view.

Daily Double

Perth Voice, 12th October, 2013. Click to enlarge.

Something I wrote must have touched the right spot with the Editor of the Perth Voice!

Here's hoping the message (if not the blunt expression of it) touches the right spot with the electors of Vincent in the current plebiscite. Remember, ballot papers must reach the Returning Officer by 6pm, Saturday 19th October. If you think you might be late, you can hand-deliver up to and including Saturday 19th October.

Why Recount Only the Donkey Vote?

I am pleased to see that the WA Senate vote is being recounted, given the very slim margin at one stage in the distribution of preferences, but I am forced to ask why this should only be for the 'above the line' votes.

Are the votes of those of us who choose to make an individual choice, rather than leaving it to party apparatchiks, of less importance? We've seen what strange (even ridiculous) outcomes above-the-line voting has achieved, so why give favourable treatment to those who use it?

Does this decision of the Electoral Commissioner create two classes of voter who are treated differently?

Does this partial recount represent discrimination, in that some of us are being denied a voting right extended to others?