My issue with Local Government

Until Saturday, for the past five or so weeks, I spent most late afternoons and early evenings after work walking my local streets letterboxing a small summary of my basic policies along with instructions on how to vote in the 2013 local government election. 

I ran for a Council seat in West Ward in the City of Bayswater. I ran on three simple issues – lower rates, tangible policies to address the crime wave impacting on my local area (I am a recent victim of a home burglary) and streamlining local council planning approvals processes.  

Polling Day was Saturday and there is no denying this fact – I got flogged. I polled a whopping 380 votes out of 5,455 valid votes. 

However, I take three positive outcomes from this campaign: It gave me a better understanding of my local area; it taught me a lot more about the people who helped me and also about those involved in grassroots politics; and more people voted for me than they did for Darren Brown.  

Today, after hearing and reading about how it’s very distressing to some journalists in WA that the voter turnout was historically low and that the answer must be to force people to vote, I got to thinking about this issue of local council voter disengagement.

It didn’t take long for me to conclude that this really isn’t an issue at all, and to force people to vote is a stupid idea.

The more important issue we ought to be discussing at great length (and at much higher levels of government), and even though this never seems to be on the agenda, is how to address the drastic overreach by local governments. 

Don’t get me wrong, this average punter firmly believes state and federal governments in Australia have all drastically overstepped their boundaries. Let’s just focus on Local Government for now.

Did any journalist who contributed to the various columns conveying the collective dismay at the 20-30% turnout stop to consider that the reason that a vast majority of eligible people don’t vote in these elections may be because most common-sense people probably expect that the only matters their local council should be in charge of are lawns, roads and rubbish? 

Most people in my neighbourhood wouldn’t know that the 2013/2014 City of Bayswater Budget totalled spending of around $70million, and consisted of a taxation of local ratepayers of some $34million. This was through a rate increase of almost double that of inflation. During the Budget process, the City issued a press release stating this increase as ‘prudent’. It certainly was interesting rhetoric.

What’s my point? A good question!

When did local governments get the power to turn a small operation charged with the responsibility of fixing our roads, taking care of our local parks and gardens and collecting our garbage into a multi-million dollar ‘tax and spend’ machine, splurging ratepayers funds on hiring sustainability consultants and ‘buzz-word’ doctors, creating make-work programmes in the form of diversity and cultural projects and awarding often ridiculously generous grants for ‘art’ projects? Oh, and please don’t forget the annual contributions local governments pay to groups like WALGA and ALGA. These two lobby groups spent millions of dollars of ratepayers’ funds on a political advertising campaign for something which never occurred, but still won’t give the funds back to ratepayers. Hashtag integrity.

If we must spend money on hiring ‘sustainability’ consultants, I’d like to hire a sustainability consultant in the form of an accountant to first examine the ‘sustainability’ of the alarming rate at which local governments are taxing and spending ratepayer money. 

Unfortunately for those libertarians among us, our governing structure agreed upon at Federation created a monster. There is a solution, one which could possibly appease almost all who are concerned. However, it will be unappealing to those with less-than-solid intestinal fortitude. Local Government (in theory) answers to the State Government and only it can do something about this growing problem. I would like to see a genuine push by the WA Liberal-National Government, by the end of this term, to legislatively cap any future Local Government rate increases to that of CPI. If we can stop the ability for over-taxation, we can slowly stop the ever-expanding purview of local governments. 

This is what I call a ‘sustainable’ approach to local government.

In summary, I know fixing roads, mowing lawns and disposing of garbage costs my local council money, but its purview should end there. Local governments must be made to recognise, by way of state legislation if necessary, the unsustainable practice of ridiculous rate rises and over-the-top spending. If we were to force people to vote in local government elections, just to be able to say people are now ‘engaged’ with grassroots politics, we would fail to address these alarming issues with local government entirely. Compulsory voting on local government elections would give councils a mandate which could only lead to further over-government and over-taxation in our country. This would be a disastrous outcome for what little freedom is left in Australia.

Brent Fleeton

Committee Chair of Perth Young Professionals Inc.

Member of the WA Liberal Party Policy Committee

Comments

[Allan]

1.

Interesting but completely misses the point that there is no such thing as legitimate "Local Government" in Australia. Local councils do not have the legislative authority to impose taxes (rates) fines, by-laws or anything else.

State government cannot install "Local Government" through legislation or otherwise. State government does not have the power to override the Commonwealth Constitution that recognises only two tiers of government Federal and State.

The matter of recognition of "Local Government" was soundly defeated in two referendums. Why don't people challenge the legality of local council actions?

[ibbit]

2.

" the unsustainable practice of ridiculous rate rises and over-the-top spending."

I largely agree, won't happen, though. All politicians with power lust and captive audiences - us the hapless who pay rates and taxes - band together to prevent an outbreak of common sense which might endanger species politician.

Where I live, in the face of the bushfire tragedy in NSW, the Mayor warns to be careful of fire because we have lots of bush around the shire. But is any of our rate money spent on clearing fuel from bush areas?

Next joke please.

[ibbit]

3.

Allan at 1 has the right of it, legally and constitutionally, speaking.

So what's the answer? My preference - get rid of state governments and harness local government to sensible limits.

Hell, why not abolish the lot of them - local, state and federal - and let a few ordinary Australian types with a modicum of common sense - no progressives need apply - run the place. Couldn't do worse, could they?

[[email protected]]

4.

There was an American, whose name escapes me, who once said he would rather be governed by the first couple of hundred people in the local phone book, than the faculty of Harvard University.

That might produce the "ordinary Australians with a modicum of common sense" whom you seek, the university faculty won't.

[Jim Witt]

5.

Well, I guess "if" a "few ordinary Australian types with a modicum of common sense - no progressives need apply" were running the country, we might have the paradise we all want. However, there are a few flies in this ointment.

1. Who and by what means is an "ordinary Australian type" determined?

2. Who and by what means determines what "a modicum of common sense" is?

3. Who and by what means determines what a "progressive" is?

Fortunately if you asked these questions to any number of people, each would have a different answer, because that is the beauty that makes us all individually unique. And just imagine the shit we would be in if someone like KRudd, Gillard, or Bandt were prominent on the selection committee.

There is no doubt that Australia is over-governed, and the most practical solution would be to get rid of the one where people pretend to be unaligned with any political party while preparing themselves to run for a higher state or federal position aligned with a political party. However, as federal politicians of all persuasions seek to centralize power in Canberra, their wish is to circumvent the states by legitimizing local governments, and this also complies with the object of UN Agenda 21, this is not going to happen.

Australia, and for that matter most of the western world, has a cabal of professional politicians with no real regard for the people in the nation they "serve". We would in fact be far better served by what Paul Hogan once observed "that what Australia needs is a benevolent dictator"

[Brent Fleeton]

6.

Good to see this started debate, Allan. Obviously the article wasn't intended to address the legal argument you have raised. It was more a line of thought on the current state of our local councils and forcing people to vote in WA local government elections.

[Anton]

7.

I would be careful about joining the call for abolishing state government. This is a constant left wing/totalitatian call, and for good reason.

The federation works best when members of the lowest level of recognised government have to compete against each other. This prevents the highest level from imposing its will. The left would like to bypass the competing state governments and impose their will through non-competing entities - local governments.

As the population of Australia is too small to support hundreds of independant competing local governments, keeping the states is still the safest option.

To improve the system we should return taxation to the states and let them compete on this level as well. This would have prevented the Greens gaining a taxpayer funded foothold in Tasmania and forced the states to adopt business friendly legislation.

Without competition even capitalism fails

[Allan]

8.

Brent, wherever you mention "Local Government" when talking about local councils and their illegitimate actions then you are introducing the legal argument.

Forcing people to vote in WA "Local Council" elections is in direct defiance of the outcome of the 1988 referendum and the Commonwealth Constitution that specifically said NO to voting in "Local Government" elections.

Sorry, but I don't believe that it is possible to debate compulsory voting in illegitimate "Local Government" elections and the illegitimate levying of "rates" (a tax) in isolation to the legal argument.

My question is, why do intelligent people from all walks of life in Australia pussy-foot around this matter instead of putting up some form of spirited challenge?

[Anton]

9.

why do intelligent people from all walks of life in Australia pussy-foot around this matter instead of putting up some form of spirited challenge?

Because Australians have never had to fight for their freedom. The Eureka Stockade is the closest thing to a civil war and we were never actually invaded. Our enemy has always been from within (Traitors)

[ibbit]

10.

My husband would most probably agree with the "benevolent dictator" comment, and you do have valid points about the centralising of power, the obnoxious UN Agenda 21, professional pollies and so on.

My comment was meant to reflect the utter frustration many feel about government in Australia, not consider the imponderables of "modicum of common sense,or ordinary Australians" or how these things might be determined.

I had in mind some of those who had the very good sense to vote out the totally incompetent, self-loving, labor government.

I like the suggestion at comment 4 about the telephone book.

[ibbit]

11.

Perchance you have read a biography about our wartime PM, John Curtin - "John Curtin a biography." Driven to absolute frustration by the need to get to Sydney for an important meeting Curtin said "the world is at war, but Australia is on a long weekend."

Sort of fits with "The eureka Stockade" comment.

I would like to see all councils reined in, particularly those pushing the notions of the UN Agenda 21, which has a formal body in Melbourne advising all councils on the subject of sustainability etc.

Why not just abolish all government in Australia - including that mob called the ABC and start all over again.

I am alive to the points you made above, but one needs to josh a little about the state of government in Australia.

[Anton]

12.

Abolish all government and start again? could be a solution.

Actually the original setup at Federation was quite good. A commonwealth of independant states, competing, but cooperating in a national sense. But this has been eroded into something less good by successive governments, especially leftist ones.

The best outcome is always when freedom and responsibility go together. Taxes should be raised at the lowest level of recognised government (state or local), with free trade and movement of people between them - making competition even more robust. The highest level should be relatively weak, acting mainly as a mediator between states, and funded by the states.

The USA started with an even better setup than we did. But they have also allowed it to be eroded, and the country is on the verge of collapse.

And if the UN want a say in our affairs it should put up a few openly identifiable candidates at the next election.

[ibbit]

13.

I agree with what you say. The system as set up originally was good as history shows - that is, as you point out until leftists governments got a say in matters. The idea of UN "identifiable candidates" standing at our next election if they want to interfere in the laws and culture of a sovereign state, openly instead of by A21 and subterfuge, is brilliant.

However, there is one big fly in the ointment - "freedom and responsibility." The idea that freedom entails responsibility at all levels - be it the ordinary person in the street or governments - has been so corrupted by the entitlement mentality as to be almost non-existent today.

Correct that, and maybe common sense will return sometime.

I must say that I am liking some of what is emanating from the government presently, so maybe hope for a return to the nexus between freedom and responsibility lurks in the woodwork.

[Anton]

14.

The concept of responsibility has been largely removed from Australians' mindset. Even in the Liberals.

When somethng goes wrong most people look for someone to blame, rather than fix the problem. When people do appologise, it is always on the assumption that there will be no consequence and the appology is a full pardon.

Welfare, public health, workplace laws, paid maternity leave are all examples of how removal of responsibility has been used to buy political support.