Contractor's 'Error' - But Vincent Policy and Practice Must Be Better

Thanks to the Perth Voice for its coverage of the Mary Street tree mutilation (below) and to Mayor Emma Cole and Vincent CEO, Len Kosova, for their detailed responses to me on matters I raised in emails with them.

However, I am less sanguine than Mr Kosova about the adequacy of Vincent's policies to prevent recurrence, especially as they appear to give property owners the right to have trees pruned up to the property boundary without having to provide any reasons for doing so - I understand that the Mary Street pruning was approved on the basis that the trees overhung one property and deposited leaves in the gutters.

Incidentally, if the 'problem' was essentially one of leaves in the gutters, surely it would be more cost-effective to install good leaf-guard in the gutters.

Whilst pruning to the property boundary might not be a problem in typical streetscapes, with smaller and spaced-out trees, exceptional treescapes, like Mary Street require greater protection.

I sincerely hope the City assesses its option with regard to the contractor, including the potential for seeking damages and removing this contractor from the City's preferred contractor list, but nothing can remediate the mutilation. 

It is essential that Council take steps to minimise the potential for recurrence. With this in mind, I shall be requesting Council to:

a) Put an immediate ban on any works on the Mary Street trees, unless clearly and demonstrably required for safety purposes, until such time as the issues leading to the recent mutilation have been adequately addressed.

b) Develop a specific management plan for the Mary Street trees, recognising the importance of maintaining the appearance of the streetscape as well as the health of individual trees. 

c) Nominate the Mary Street treescape for inclusion on the State Heritage Register - there are already 20 trees or groups of trees on the Register. 

The current Street Trees policy (2.1.2) does not adequately address the Mary Street situation - for example, it appears to grant an unqualified right to property line pruning (Clause 4), which is not appropriate where such pruning might adversely affect the value and amenity of the rest of the treescape.

https://perthvoiceinteractive.com/2017/09/08/what-a-fig-up

Mary Street Trees: Judge for yourself what has been lost

I've been searching for a 'before' picture to compare with mine of the devastated Mary Street trees - not easy, as most people take pics under the cooling canopy of the trees.

However, Google Maps (street view) to the rescue, albeit with some camera distortion, with a picture taken in March this year.

So, just ignore the Water Corporation's contractor's workers (who were, for once, on-site and actually working) and judge for yourself what has been lost - what are now the 'twin-peaks' just in from the left about 1/6 were previously 1/3 of the way in from the left.

To put it in simple terms, 15% of the canopy width has been lost. There has also been substantial loss of material from the lower levels of the trees.

The pictures also seem to indicate that the pruning the southern side of Mary Street at the William Street end has been more severe than was apparent from the visible cut marks.

Source: Google Maps, Street View.

More on Mary Street Trees

Lunchtime on Monday 4th September - and no response (not even an acknowledgment) from elected members of Council (with the honourable exception of Cr Matt Buckels and, today, Cr Dan Loden (1pm) and Cr Jonathan Hallett (3.30pm)) nor the City's Administration.

Since the previous post (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2017/09/mary-street-trees-butchered.html) a bit more research has revealed that the city of Vincent reviewed its Significant Tree Inventory in 2013. It's consultant's review was unanimously adopted by Council on 5th November 2013.

On Mary Street, the consultant's recommendation was: "Monitor the sunscald injury for the trees on the south side and the production of reparative tissue to close the wounds. Consideration should be given to minor crown lifting to improve clearance for high vehicles."

No mention here of any problems with the trees that would merit even consideration of drastic reduction of any of the trees such as is now all too painfully obvious at the William Street end of Mary Street. Note the 'before' picture in the consultant's report (below) and the current, post-vandalism view.

NOTE: This post was amended 4pm Monday 4th September to acknowledge the response of Cr Dan Loden and Cr Jonathan Hallett.

Mary Street Trees Butchered

Mary Street is one of Vincent's iconic streets, with heritage buildings and heritage trees that give it a unique ambience.

Why, then, have five of the trees on the northern side, at the William Street end, been butchered, totally changing the look of the street - not to mention removing welcoming shade in summer? 

It is noticeable that these five trees are alongside just one property. If this tree vandalism has been undertaken at the behest of the owners of that property, this sets a very disturbing precedent.

In addition, this appears to be contrary to the spirit, and probably the letter, of the 2014 Vincent Greening Plan, especially that part dealing with enhancement and management of tree canopy. The Greening Plan shows Mary Street as being comparable to parks and reserves in its contribution to vegetation cover. 

Given the importance and value of Mary Street, and the magnitude of the intervention, it is strange that I can find no mention in Council Minutes of any works being required nor the reasons why they might be. 

To make matters worse, there is no evidence of the trees or the substantial limbs removed being diseased in any way. 

I am, of course, assuming that the works were actually carried out by or for the City of Vincent. If I am wrong, I apologise to Council and staff - but then the proverbial book should be thrown at whoever WAS responsible for this vandalism.

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

People Power Does It Again.

Queensland communities forced the demerger of several forcibly-amalgamated councils - a partial, but significant, victory.

WA communities forced Colin Barnett to back down completely on forced local government amalgamations.

Now NSW communities have achieved the same, although there is a problem with councils that have already amalgamated against the will of one or more of the councils and communities concerned.

Congratulations to all those who have worked so hard in NSW.

Another one in the eye for those who said we were wasting our time.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-27/council-amalgamations-scrapped-in-nsw-after-government-backflip/8748164

All-Day Parking To Be Squeezed Into Two Blocks in Vincent

Car parking has long been a thorny issue in inner-urban Vincent. In addition to the activity generated by the City's town centres, some streets have effectively become car parks for City of Perth commuters who, rather than pay up to $20 a day for parking in the City, park for nothing and pay less than $2 each way for a 2-section bus ride.

Vincent has progressively introduced time restrictions, coupled with resident/visitor parking permits to manage this, as well as some paid parking in Mt Lawley/Highgate and Leederville town centres.

The latest expansion of time-restricted parking will take effect from 1 July 2017 and covers the area around the North Perth town centre, between Charles and Norfolk Streets.

This, in itself, is a logical extension of Council's parking policy in response to increasing pressures on its town centres - and recent improvements to bus services through North Perth (even if it doesn't look like the MAX light rail will be resurrected any time soon!). On Vincent Street it will also improve parking availability during the week for users of Hyde Park, including the water playground, without having to shepherd children across busy Vincent Street.

However, it has the unfortunate consequence that the area between Norfolk Street and William Street, from Vincent Street northwards, will be the only area in reasonable proximity to the Perth CBD across the whole of Vincent that does not have time-restricted parking. Some of these streets, notably Vincent Street and Chelmsford Road, are already parked out soon after 8am on weekdays and the increased restrictions elsewhere will force even more all-day parking into this area.

From a community perspective, one of the most disquieting aspects is the lack of consultation with (or even information to) residents of the area between Norfolk and William Streets. The proverbial Blind Freddy could see that this area is going to bear the brunt

I am a resident of Vincent Street and only found out about the changes (apparently first mooted back in November 2016) when I contacted City of Vincent about another parking matter on Vincent Street.

Vincent Council has severely let down the residents of the area between Norfolk and William Streets and should urgently implement similar time restrictions for this area.

Controversial Floodplain Development Proposed by City of South Perth

The City of South Perth is proposing a substantial ($7 million) development in Sir James Mitchell Park on the South Perth Foreshore https://southperth.wa.gov.au/our-future/projects-and-places/westralian-centre. According to local residents, this proposal is being pushed along with unnecessary haste.

A Special Electors’ Meeting on Thursday 8 June at 6 pm at South Perth Community Hall (cnr Sandgate St and South Terrace) has been called to get further information and allow electors to express their views.

Additionally, you can 'Have Your Say' via the City of South Perth website https://yoursay.southperth.wa.gov.au/the-westralian-centre – BUT NOTE this questionnaire closes Friday 2 June 2017.

Unfortunately, the artist's impression (below) gives the impression that the landward side of the park rises up towards Mill Point Road. Whilst this is true for the immediate corner shown, the area immediately behind the proposed development is virtually flat, so anything above ground level (even if disguised with a turf roof) will be a visual barrier to the river. 

Any community consultation (and to-date there appears to have been little, if any, active consultation) must be based on accurate drawings and pictures from ground (ie observer) level not the elevated viewpoint currently shown, from which no-one will ever see it, including from Mill Point Road and from the River as well as both east and west along the foreshore.

The bottom picture, below, gives the impression that there would still be an uninterrupted view of the Swan River, but the 7-metre height of the building and the flatness of the surrounding foreshore mean that this will not be so.

There are important issues surrounding any built form on the Swan River foreshore, especially when it involves a commercial element and removes some 2,200m2 of public open space - even if the development would (presumably) be under the control of the Council. We should not forget that Sir James Mitchell Park is Crown Land that was created as a reserve by the Minister for Lands for the purpose of Recreation. Whilst it is managed by the City of South Perth, it rightly belongs to all Western Australians.

The central area of the proposed development has a large expanse of concrete or paving (ie heatsink) with absolutely no shade. Since this is north-facing, it will become intolerably hot on sunny summer days, even though the southern 'passage' might funnel some breezes (but not the Fremantle Doctor, which comes from the southwest, not the south), the heat from above (sun) and below (paving) will make this a very uninviting space.

I'm not sure, either, that masses of concrete/paving reflects aboriginal heritage/significance (as stated by the City of South Perth), which prompts the question of how much consultation there has been with aboriginal communities.

More fundamentally, one must question the wisdom of any new development on a foreshore that is barely above the level of the river, especially in view of the recent report (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-23/coastal-areas-at-risk-new-climate-study-reveals/8549934) that sea level rise (and Perth Water is tidal, so will be affected) could result in the inundation of the foreshore by the end of the century.

Even with a lesser sea-level rise, low-lying foreshore areas will be subject to more frequent storm- and tide-related inundation.

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.

More on coat of arms

I noticed, in passing today, that Eleni Evangel's billboard on Beaufort Street has had the state coat of arms covered over by a piece of blue plastic (which is nevertheless in danger of blowing off).

I don't know when the WA Today photograph (see my previous post http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2017/03/illegal-political-advertising-misuse-of.html) was taken (although it is presumably recent for the story to benewsworthy), but covering up the coat of arms on the Beaufort Street billboard is tacit acknowledgment that its use was, at best, inappropriate.

I questioned the legality with the Electoral Commission, which replied (very quickly - perhaps indicating that I was not the first to raise the issue):

Use of ‘common badging’ and the State Coat of Arms during the caretaker period is a matter for the Department of Premier and Cabinet under Caretaker Conventions.The Electoral Act 1907 does not address the use of such images during campaign periods. 

The Caretaker Conventions do not specifically mention election advertising, but do state:

This would appear to exclude use of the State coat of arms for any other purpose, including election advertising.

Illegal(?) Political Advertising - misuse of WA coat of arms

First, a disclaimer. Although a long-term resident of the City of Vincent (since 1985), the recent changes to electoral boundaries has shifted me from Perth into Mt Lawley. Clearly, the electoral commission has the same lack of appreciation of 'community of interest' as the Local Government Advisory Board - Mt Lawley south of Walcott Street is very different from Mt Lawley north of it.

Nevertheless, I retain a close interest in the state seat of Perth - and the main candidates clearly support me in this, as I keep getting literature from both Eleni Evangel and John Carey - as well as, correctly, from Simon Millman and Michael Sutherland, candidates for Mt Lawley.

It has previously been reported that Eleni Evangel, member/candidate for Perth, has chosen not to use the Liberal brand in her billboard advertising - although her fliers do have the Liberal brand prominent.

What I do not recall seeing mentioned, however, is that she IS using the WA Government brand/cost of arms (see pic). Is this legal?

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/second-proliberal-billboard-adorns-lisa-scaffidi-building-20170303-guq0mz.html

And while on the subject of political advertising, can we reduce visual pollution by restricting candidate-specific advertising to the candidate's own electorate. The billboards above are in the Perth electorate and Michael Sutherland should not inflict himself on all and sundry.

South Perth: Find Out What Your Candidates Stand For

I'm not a resident of South Perth (although I was when I first came to WA in 1977), but I applaud the South Perth community for taking the initiative to call a Town Hall meeting at which all seven candidates for the 11th March state election will be able to talk to and be quizzed by the community on an equal footing.

If you are a voter in the South Perth electorate, particularly if you are unsure who to vote for or want to find out how each of the candidates would proposes to represent you on issues of particular concern in South Perth, then take a little of your time to go along.

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

Time for Voters' Question Time

Day after day, week after week, year after year, we see parliamentary question time (both federal and state) degenerate into a farce of dorothy-dixers, political point-scoring, obfuscation and name-calling. 

Very occasionally, but increasingly rarely, some useful information is elicited. 

Both sides of politics, whether in government or opposition, are equally to blame, so let's think about how we might actually get some value from Question Time.

Here's a 'radical' (ie democratic) thought. Instead of politicians setting the questions, why not let voters do so? 

The on-line technology to do this already exists. In the UK, e-petitions gaining 10,000 valid signatures will get a response from Government and those with 100,000 will be considered for debate in the Parliament (https://petition.parliament.uk). In the past two years, 380 e-petitions have received a government response and 48 have been debated in Parliament - sometimes with a full day of debate. 30 are currently awaiting a government response and 7 a debate in Parliament.

Only 14 petitions with the requisite 100,000 signatures have been refused debate in Parliament.

Incidentally, e-petitions seem to be totally beyond the WA Parliament (which still requires hard copy with written signatures). E-petitions are accepted by the Federal Parliament, but are referred to the appropriate Minister rather than debated  under public scrutiny.

If our Parliaments and Government find e-petitions too threatening, perhaps we could (in the words of Monty Python) make the move 'from accountancy to lion-taming via banking' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azkFz1ZbXyU). 

It would be a brave PM, Premier or Minister who responded to a question from voters by slagging off the questioners or effectively refusing to answer the question.

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

Beware, Bill Marmion (and others) - Lessons from NSW

For some months now there has been relative peace and quiet on the WA local government front, but who knows what might happen after the March 2017 State election.

In NSW, however, the Baird Liberal Government continues to make waves with its forced local government amalgamations, some of which are still working their way through the courts. One of these is the forced amalgamation of Orange, Cabonne and Blayney Councils - the area that just happened to be the subject of a by-election last weekend.

The NSW State seat of Orange had been held by the Nationals since 1947, but no more. In what reports attribute to widespread discontent at the forced local government amalgamations and the stuffed-up ban (then non-ban) of greyhound racing, a right wing independent from the Shooters and Fishers Party has taken the seat.

Local Government NSW President Keith Rhoades said: "This massive repudiation of forced amalgamations comes hot on the heels of the September 10 local government elections, where voters of stand-alone councils sent an equally clear ‘back off’ message to the Liberal/National government".

The Nationals are a partner with the Liberals in the NSW Government and the basis of the voter discontent is said to be that the Nationals "had stood by and said nothing as Premier Mike Baird made 'arbitrary and arrogant decisions' without explaining these decisions to the community or consulting them" (http://www.governmentnews.com.au/2016/11/25625).

Does this sound familiar? I'm sure it does to many of those who were part of the community groundswell that eventually overcame Barnett's ideological push for larger councils in WA. Many local members were at best silent or even supported forced amalgamations in opposition to the voices of their communities.

More recently, Subiaco residents were appalled by the lack of support for their community by their local MLA, Bill Marmion, when faced by the dismembering of the City of Subiaco, without consultation, under the City of Perth Act.

These silent MPs, and Bill Marmion in particular, would do well to ponder their perfidy between now and March 2017. Whilst it is probably too much to hope that they might fall on their swords, it would be nice to hear the occasional 'mea culpa' and sincere promise (as distinct from disposable 'election commitment') to consult and listen to their communities in future.

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.

Do Unto Others …………

Minister for Transport and Agriculture, Dean Nalder, has followed Tony Simpson in resigning from Cabinet and former Minister, Helen Morton, has come out in support of them.

There is common thread in these three narratives and that is arrogance, lack of communication and even bullying.

Tony Simpson is reported as saying he was kept in the dark by the Premier’s Office and had to “second guess” Colin Barnett’s policy positions by listening to talkback radio. There were numerous examples of this lack of communication during the local government so-called reform fiasco, including when Col unilaterally ran up the white flag despite being defeated on only three of the proposals.

Dean Nalder is reported as saying "Colin is making irrational decisions without consultation with respect to Ministers". He instanced Perth Freight Link, the sealing of the Cape Leveque Road and the announcement of new Boyanup sale yards, all matters within his portfolios, as cases where the Premier directed him without discussion or made announcements without even informing him.

Former Minister, Helen Morton, is even more forthright. According to the ABC's Jessica Strutt, Helen Morton has accused staff in the Premier's office of running a "machine" of bullying, intimidation and threats of ministers. Morton says both Tony Simpson and Dean Nalder, who have quit Cabinet, have been victims of it. She also saw it when she was a minister.

Clearly, Col cannot continue as leader of the WA Liberals (and hence as Premier), without the confidence of key Liberal MPs or of the community, but it is not clear who might replace him. This itself is a direct consequence of Col's arrogance and bullying.

For me, I can't see anyone currently in the Parliamentary Liberal Party who has the qualities necessary to be an effective Premier. After the March 2017 election, the Liberals' talent pool will be considerably smaller.

Meanwhile, head-in-the-sand Mount Lawley MLA, Michael Sutherland (in whose electorate I now unfortunately reside after the recent boundary changes) said there is no leadership crisis, despite the current leader being so on the nose (Crisis 1) and the total lack of competent alternative leaders in the Parliamentary Liberal Party (Crisis 2).

The manner of Simpson and Nalder making their announcements suggests that their frustration has driven them to "do unto Col as he has done unto them". I can only hope that whoever is Liberal leader after the next few days (even if it is still Col) learns the pragmatic lesson of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'.

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.