Minister David Templeman wants “A new Act for a New Time” claiming it will be
the biggest reform of the WA Local Government Act.1995, in 20 years. Try
23 years and still counting as we head towards the end of 2018 with no final,
clearly defined policy in sight. Yes we do need a new ACT but it needs to be a
BETTER one- and soon!- Not another year away.
The Minister’s so-called ‘big reform; includes the right for community interest parties, otherwise known as stakeholders and/ or ratepayers, to have their input. This is extremely kind and generous of him seeing we all pay his wages and perks, those of his staff , those of shire and city councillors and all local government employees.
In many cases they are certainly not paid peanuts but there can be a distribution to monkeys.
The Minister’s so-called ‘big reform; includes the right for community interest parties, otherwise known as stakeholders and/ or ratepayers, to have their input. This is extremely kind and generous of him seeing we all pay his wages and perks, those of his staff , those of shire and city councillors and all local government employees.
In many cases they are certainly not paid peanuts but there can be a distribution to monkeys.
Mr. Templeman reminds us all
that Local Governments, arguably the most poorly performing sector in
Australia’s Three Tiers of Government System, particularly regarding financial
accountability, often make controversial decisions. (And, on a
per capita basis, Western Australia has far more local governments than any
other state.)
As a politician he uses the term controversial rather than irresponsible, ridiculous or even vapid and vacuous.
Unfortunately those who pick up the tab for multi-million dollar indiscretions/controversies, often aggravated by contentious Local Government By-Laws, Principles and Guidelines which can defy even basic logic, are once again and always- the long suffering ratepayer.
These formidable faux pas are often exacerbated by the distinct lack of knowledge of legal and equitable understandings of the laws and statutes governing a particular industry which has a local government officer overseeing, possibly even interfering with its creation, development structure and performance in a Local Government Area. (Too often to an individuals and industries’ detriment and the stultification of much needed progress.)
As an example, for those who are Local Government Planning Officers -you cannot undertake Land Use Planning restrictions using the Environmental Protection Act to prevent such things as perceived detrimental noise from aircraft. This is for not one (1) but two (2) clearly specified reasons being the regulation (1) specifically excludes the assessment of aircraft noise- therefore (2) the rule does not apply.
It would be extremely helpful that all persons employed as Local Government Planning Officers and their direct superiors, including Chief Executive Officers, were aware of these edicts- so a probably disgruntled State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) does not have to waste its time, its energy and our money in suggesting to a shire council that it reconsiders making demands that it cannot enforce. The word Reconsideration in these type of cases may well mean get it right next time.
Therefore the few who, in a Local Government Area, may well feel they will be disturbed through undue sensory reception caused by aircraft noise maybe, for the common good, retreat from making a fuss. And, obviously, those who make such perceived errors of judgement, based on presumed lack of knowledge, are now on SAT and public records.
As a politician he uses the term controversial rather than irresponsible, ridiculous or even vapid and vacuous.
Unfortunately those who pick up the tab for multi-million dollar indiscretions/controversies, often aggravated by contentious Local Government By-Laws, Principles and Guidelines which can defy even basic logic, are once again and always- the long suffering ratepayer.
These formidable faux pas are often exacerbated by the distinct lack of knowledge of legal and equitable understandings of the laws and statutes governing a particular industry which has a local government officer overseeing, possibly even interfering with its creation, development structure and performance in a Local Government Area. (Too often to an individuals and industries’ detriment and the stultification of much needed progress.)
As an example, for those who are Local Government Planning Officers -you cannot undertake Land Use Planning restrictions using the Environmental Protection Act to prevent such things as perceived detrimental noise from aircraft. This is for not one (1) but two (2) clearly specified reasons being the regulation (1) specifically excludes the assessment of aircraft noise- therefore (2) the rule does not apply.
It would be extremely helpful that all persons employed as Local Government Planning Officers and their direct superiors, including Chief Executive Officers, were aware of these edicts- so a probably disgruntled State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) does not have to waste its time, its energy and our money in suggesting to a shire council that it reconsiders making demands that it cannot enforce. The word Reconsideration in these type of cases may well mean get it right next time.
Therefore the few who, in a Local Government Area, may well feel they will be disturbed through undue sensory reception caused by aircraft noise maybe, for the common good, retreat from making a fuss. And, obviously, those who make such perceived errors of judgement, based on presumed lack of knowledge, are now on SAT and public records.
The vast, continuously expanding
chasm between politicians, government departments and reality is exemplified by
recent statements made by Mr. Templeman regarding financial accountability,
particularly relating to rural and remote shire councils.
He is toying with an idea to allow councils to become commercial trading corporations, arguably giving them the right to develop businesses in direct competition with their ratepayers, trading in anything from apples to fly zippers or owning and running unprofitable taverns and convention centres.
It goes even further with a suggestion that investment regulations are removed to allow your local councils to sink ratepayers money into financial instruments not guaranteed by the Commonwealth or the WA State Government, thereby granting the potential ability for those with no known financial business services acumen to invest your rate money in high risk ventures such as ‘Bitcoins’ or Elon Musk’s ‘Space X’ private passenger flight around the moon!
It gets worse, including allowing councils to secure debt against property such as the alleged dilapidated by neglect “Chalkies” and guarantee finance for commercial developers and non-residential property owners, although this means that campaign funds provided to council members by property developers will be banned.
This low risk assessment of local government councils and officers ability to dabble with your money in the stock market, trade as a commercial corporation and possibly financially assist a relative, friend and business partner through a financial guarantee is tempered by the fact that there may be much harsher penalties for a malfeasance which appears to happen regularly- the Breaching of Tendering Rules.
There is also a large body of disgruntled ratepayers throughout the state who believe their councils cannot even perform adequately in some of the basic functions and requirements- such as local road maintenance, let alone become a viable, profit making business and investor.
Others subscribe to the view that the relaxation of investment regulations is in the hope that councils make enough money in financial share and business trading that the Commonwealth and the State can reduce the amount of their commitment for the provision of loans and grant funding?
For years arguments have been raised regarding the fact that Local Government Elections are not held under a universal franchise, being restricted to ratepayers only. Proposed changes would mean that a compulsory voting system for everyone on the electoral role would be introduced as well as the possibility of online voting.
The perception here is that with elections being the same as Federal and State, the fact that everyone above the age of 18 can vote, will reduce the potential for small-self interest groups, for example farmers in rural areas, to dominate a councils’ decision making processes.
However this could mean ‘Political Parties’ may become more and more involved in local government councils in rural, regional and remote areas than they are now. Campaign donations from property developers, the tobacco industry and liquor and gaming entities will be banned- political party funding of a council candidate is not.
So where does all this affect the Shire of York both directly and indirectly.
Certainly there may be an objection by a number of ratepayers to their money being invested by the current local government officers with the Shire.
To put everything into perspective, since 2015 when half the current councillors were elected, as well as the current Shire President, the average price of a domestic property in York has fallen by 26 per cent, there are 2 to 3 times the number of dwellings for sale, in York, compared to similar sized shires and they take approximately one-and-a-half years to sell.
This socio-economic malaise does not seem to have been halted by the employment of a new Chief-Executive-Officer in mid 2016. In 2017 the median house price fell by 3.2%.
When there is a substantial economic downturn at the state and federal level, the Commonwealth and State Governments are directly blamed for the crisis in confidence. There is therefore a substantive argument for some blame to be the laid at the feet of Councillors and the administrators they employ when a financial and/or economic crisis develops within the confines of a Local Government Area.
David Taylor.
He is toying with an idea to allow councils to become commercial trading corporations, arguably giving them the right to develop businesses in direct competition with their ratepayers, trading in anything from apples to fly zippers or owning and running unprofitable taverns and convention centres.
It goes even further with a suggestion that investment regulations are removed to allow your local councils to sink ratepayers money into financial instruments not guaranteed by the Commonwealth or the WA State Government, thereby granting the potential ability for those with no known financial business services acumen to invest your rate money in high risk ventures such as ‘Bitcoins’ or Elon Musk’s ‘Space X’ private passenger flight around the moon!
It gets worse, including allowing councils to secure debt against property such as the alleged dilapidated by neglect “Chalkies” and guarantee finance for commercial developers and non-residential property owners, although this means that campaign funds provided to council members by property developers will be banned.
This low risk assessment of local government councils and officers ability to dabble with your money in the stock market, trade as a commercial corporation and possibly financially assist a relative, friend and business partner through a financial guarantee is tempered by the fact that there may be much harsher penalties for a malfeasance which appears to happen regularly- the Breaching of Tendering Rules.
There is also a large body of disgruntled ratepayers throughout the state who believe their councils cannot even perform adequately in some of the basic functions and requirements- such as local road maintenance, let alone become a viable, profit making business and investor.
Others subscribe to the view that the relaxation of investment regulations is in the hope that councils make enough money in financial share and business trading that the Commonwealth and the State can reduce the amount of their commitment for the provision of loans and grant funding?
For years arguments have been raised regarding the fact that Local Government Elections are not held under a universal franchise, being restricted to ratepayers only. Proposed changes would mean that a compulsory voting system for everyone on the electoral role would be introduced as well as the possibility of online voting.
The perception here is that with elections being the same as Federal and State, the fact that everyone above the age of 18 can vote, will reduce the potential for small-self interest groups, for example farmers in rural areas, to dominate a councils’ decision making processes.
However this could mean ‘Political Parties’ may become more and more involved in local government councils in rural, regional and remote areas than they are now. Campaign donations from property developers, the tobacco industry and liquor and gaming entities will be banned- political party funding of a council candidate is not.
So where does all this affect the Shire of York both directly and indirectly.
Certainly there may be an objection by a number of ratepayers to their money being invested by the current local government officers with the Shire.
To put everything into perspective, since 2015 when half the current councillors were elected, as well as the current Shire President, the average price of a domestic property in York has fallen by 26 per cent, there are 2 to 3 times the number of dwellings for sale, in York, compared to similar sized shires and they take approximately one-and-a-half years to sell.
This socio-economic malaise does not seem to have been halted by the employment of a new Chief-Executive-Officer in mid 2016. In 2017 the median house price fell by 3.2%.
When there is a substantial economic downturn at the state and federal level, the Commonwealth and State Governments are directly blamed for the crisis in confidence. There is therefore a substantive argument for some blame to be the laid at the feet of Councillors and the administrators they employ when a financial and/or economic crisis develops within the confines of a Local Government Area.
David Taylor.
No comments:
Post a Comment