Probity Blues

Have the Minister for Local Government and Communities and his officials flunked their own probity test?

Back in November 2013, Brad Jolly of the DLGC gave—probably in-house—a  presentation entitled ‘Maintaining Probity in Local Government – A State Regulator’s Perspective’.

You can find the complete text of his presentation at

https://www2.iceaustralia.com/ei/images/APSACC13/ppt/Mr%20Brad%20Jolly.pdf

Mr Jolly isn’t just a nondescript keyboard-tapper in the WA bureaucracy. Unless I’m much mistaken, he’s the bloke responsible for running the so-called ‘probity inquiry’ into the York Shire Council.  So when he speaks about probity, we can safely assume that he speaks not only for himself but also for his minister, Tony Simpson, and the DLGC.  He’s the Minister’s probity guru, you might say.

Probity - what’s that?

For Mr Jolly, probity means ‘being morally and ethically above reproach, having integrity’.  Not much scope for disagreement there.

Probity matters in local government, he says, because a lot of money is involved, spread over many councils, so ‘we don’t cross our fingers and hope’. 

Obviously, he wasn’t thinking of York, where, thanks in no small measure to him and his departmental colleagues, crossing fingers and hoping has been the order of the day for several years.

Probity and good governance

Probity is a product of good governance.  It’s the department’s job to make sure that local councils maintain probity by means of good governance, and if they don’t, Mr Jolly says, to ‘enforce compliance’ until they do.

Mr Jolly provides the following quotation to explain what good governance, which guarantees probity, means:

It is participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive and follows the rule of law. It assures that corruption is minimised, the views of minorities are taken into account and that the voices of the most vulnerable in society are heard in decision-making.

(OECD, 2001)

So let’s construct a checklist from that definition to find out how Tony Simpson and his officials shape up in the probity stakes so far as their dealings with the York Shire Council are concerned. 

1.                   Participatory?  Hardly.  The Minister did not invite the opinions of York residents as to whether or not council should be suspended.  And one of the Minister’s complaints in the notice seems to have been that Cr Reid, as Shire President, gave too much scope to ratepayer participation during public question time.  

2.                   Consensus oriented?  Hardly. If the decision to suspend the Council was the product of consensus, it can only have been consensus amongst the Minister and his cronies, which doesn’t count.

3.                   Accountable?  Hardly. The Minister has refused to explain precisely why he decided to suspend the council.  This prevents us from challenging his decision and holding him to account. 

4.                   Transparent? In a sense, yes: we can see through the Minister’s actions.  But not because he wants us to. 

5.                   Responsive?  Yes, but only to pleas for help from his mates. That doesn’t count. 

6.                   Effective and efficient?  Yes, the Minister and his department effectively and efficiently stuffed up the council, insulted its president, and shut down democracy in York.

7.                   Equitable?  The dictionary meaning is ‘just and right; fair; reasonable’.  There’s nothing just, right, fair or reasonable about the Minister’s decision. I’m sure he and his officials know that.

8.                   Inclusive?  If what’s meant is ‘inclusive of community opinion’, I don’t think the Minister scores well on this one. 

9.                   Follows the rule of law?  As well as ‘equality before the law’, the rule of law relies on two vital principles: ‘hear the other side’ and ‘nobody can be a judge in their own cause’.  These underwrite what bureaucrats now call ‘due process’ but we lesser mortals think of as ‘natural justice’.

The council’s ‘Show Cause’ response amounted to about 1500 pages of evidence and argument comprehensively refuting every allegation in the notice.  Did the Minister actually read that response, i.e. ‘hear the other side’?   

I doubt it.  If he had, he would be willing and able to tell us in detail why he rejected the council’s response and went ahead with suspension despite what was said in the response.

10.                Minimizes corruption?  The DLGC did nothing to minimize or discourage the corruption that took place under previous shire administrations, although they knew about it.  Now it wants to bury the Fitz Gerald Report, which provides ample evidence of that corruption.  Will the Minister and his officials authorise the rigorous inquiry into past corruption that the York community wants?  Right now, it doesn’t seem likely.

11.                Minorities?  Yes, the Minister and his department took on board what a very small, self-interested minority of York’s residents wanted, and acted accordingly.  (Unfortunately, this entailed shafting the rest of us.)

12.                Hears voices of the most vulnerable?  Well, if we count as most vulnerable the people whose tales of harassment and persecution are given voice in the Fitz Gerald Report, do they think the Minister and his officials have listened to them?

My verdict:  the Minister and DLGC have failed, in their dealings with York Shire Council, to meet the probity standards they see themselves as required to impose on local government in Western Australia. 

What’s your opinion?  Please, please persuade me that I’m wrong, and restore my faith in the system!

James Plumridge