This is the personal blog of Ian Ker, who was Councillor for the South Ward of the Town of Vincent from 1995 to 2009. I have been a resident of this area since 1985. This blog was originally conceived as a way of letting residents of Vincent know what I have been doing and sharing thoughts on important issues. I can now use it to sound off about things that concern me.

If you want to contact me, my e-mail is still ian_ker@hotmail.com or post a comment on this blog.

To post a comment on this blog, select the individual post on which you wish to comment, by clicking on the title in the post or in the list to the left of the blog, and scroll down to the 'Post a Comment' box at the foot.

Search This Blog

Friday, August 9, 2013

How Not To Understand A Community

In the debate on Mark McGowan's Motion on a Matter of Public Interest, the Minister for Local Government, Tony Simpson (I'm sure there must be lots of apposite Simpsons quotes to come for this whole charade) made some very illuminating comments.

He said: "I took the opportunity to drive up and down Beaufort Street". Is that the sum total of Mr Simpson's knowledge of the Mt Lawley area for which he proposes major upheavals? He might, at least, have walked for a while, perhaps talked to a few people, taken the time to hear how people feel about their community.

He also said: "The Mayor of Belmont was at the breakfast today and raised one good point with me. He said that the City of Belmont provides some fantastic services to its community with security patrols and so forth. He asked, “Am I expected to do the same for Pickering Brook up in Kalamunda?” I said, “Well, no. At the end of the day the ratepayers are entitled to the same service they get today but I am sure with the two coming together we can deliver better services. But I know for a fact, because I represent Pickering Brook, that they do not want the services of the City of Belmont because they live in a rural atmosphere and that’s what they like living there for."

This raises key questions about community of interest.

And then there is pure sloppiness. Mr Simpson said: "I thought that the whole of the airport site had been put into the City of Belmont to make sure there was clearly one local government for the City of Belmont and the airport, but interestingly they [people at the Property Council breakfast] identified that a corner of the industrial area has been missed out."

This is inexcusable sloppiness in the development of public policy that that will have major effects on the lives and businesses of the people of Perth for decades to come.

The Minister should not rely on the Local Government Advisory Board to rectify the deficiencies in his proposals. Indeed, there are limits on the extent to which the Board can make a recommendation that differs from that into which it was asked to inquire (see para 6, below). A recommendation for a proposal that is 'significantly different' from the one into which the Board was asked to inquire triggers a whole new process, requiring:
(a) notice to affected local governments, affected electors and the other electors of districts directly affected by the recommendation 
(b) adequate opportunity for submissions to be made about the intended order; and
(c) consideration of those submissions by the LGAB.

If a local government was this sloppy, the Minister would, no doubt, be jumping up and down and decrying its inefficiency. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander, Minister.

Extract from Hansard, 6th August 2013


Mr A.J. SIMPSON: It is all about making sure we develop a vibrant city and making sure we get it right. I must admit that there will always be some anomalies in the system. As I said at question time today, I took the opportunity to drive up and down Beaufort Street, and that was one of the clear things that came back to me at the Beaufort Street festival. But just keep in mind, members, that the current boundary between the City of Vincent and the City of Perth is Newcastle Street. The Northbridge festival seems to operate all right and does not seem to have a problem with the boundary on Newcastle Street. As we look at where the boundaries lie, I must agree that there are some anomalies in the system. Perhaps the Beaufort Street boundary will not work and we may have to move it up a bit. However, the proposals for the City of Stirling, the City of Bayswater and the City of Perth will be put to the Local Government Advisory Board to identify any anomaly that needs to be looked at. This morning at the Property Council breakfast people from Perth Airport identified an anomaly. I thought that the whole of the airport site had been put into the City of Belmont to make sure there was clearly one local government for the City of Belmont and the airport, but interestingly they identified that a corner of the industrial area has been missed out. The most important thing again is that the Gateway WA project and the airport development will all be within one local government all the way through to Forrestfield and High Wycombe and up into the rural aspect of Kalamunda. The Mayor of Belmont was at the breakfast today and raised one good point with me. He said that the City of Belmont provides some fantastic services to its community with security patrols and so forth. He asked, “Am I expected to do the same for Pickering Brook up in Kalamunda?” I said, “Well, no. At the end of the day the ratepayers are entitled to the same service they get today but I am sure with the two coming together we can deliver better services. But I know for a fact, because I represent Pickering Brook, that they do not want the services of the City of Belmont because they live in a rural atmosphere and that’s what they like living there for. They’re not in that process.”

Extract from Schedule 2.1 to the Local Government Act 1995.

               (1)         After formally inquiring into a proposal, the Advisory Board, in a written report to the Minister, is to recommend* — 
                           (a)         that the Minister reject the proposal; or
                           (b)         that an order be made in accordance with the proposal; or
                           (c)         if it thinks fit after complying with subclause (2), the making of some other order that may be made under section 2.1.
               * Absolute majority required.
               (2)         The Advisory Board is not to recommend to the Minister the making of an order that is significantly different from the proposal into which it formally inquired unless the Board has — 
                           (a)         given* notice to affected local governments, affected electors and the other electors of districts directly affected by the recommendation of its intention to do so; and
                           (b)         afforded adequate opportunity for submissions to be made about the intended order; and
                           (c)            considered any submissions made.
* Absolute majority required.

No comments:

Post a Comment