“I was
once told that Brian Burke boasted that if the Liberals were to ever gain
power, it would take them 20 years to root out the people that he had placed in
the public service.”
Hon Rob Johnson, WA Legislative Assembly, 27th February 2007
‘Has anyone noticed that
the Corruption and Crime Commission
has not been that busy recently because there is a Liberal–National Party in government?’
It was a classic sound bite, devoid of any substance
but may have been intended to create an illusion that all was well with the
good governance of WA. Maybe Barnett believed his comment might act as a subtle
reminder to the Opposition members that the Premier was still willing to lay
claim to the moral high ground. Maybe Barnett and his Liberal-National Party
colleagues were sending a message that they were ready to point towards
the dirty washing of the WA Inc era again, ready to remind the electorate how
the malignant influence of Brian Burke the lobbyist had continued to shame
Western Australia throughout the years of the last Labor governments under
Gallop and Carpenter.
Barnett is not a stupid man, he would be well
aware that observing two events occurring in sequence, one after another, is
not justification for an assumption that the first event in any way caused or
affected the outcome of the second. Attributing a cause to an effect you have
observed without any justification other than timing is foolhardy and will
often result in embarrassment.
For Barnett that embarrassment came just a few
months later when an article by Gary Adshead, published in ‘The West Australian’,
revealed that at least three Corruption and Crime Commission investigators had
been paid settlements from tax-payer funds after suffering harassment and
intimidation in the workplace. Within hours of Adshead’s article appearing a
press release from the Acting CEO of the Corruption and Crime Commission denied the story.
But the statement from the CCC was not totally convincing as it claimed full
disclosure was not possible in such confidential
matters relating to industrial relations.
At the time Barnett had claimed the moral high
ground for Liberal-National coalition under his leadership the Corruption and Crime
Commission had no Commissioner, there had been no leader for the agency since
Commissioner Roger Macknay had unexpectedly resigned midway through his contracted
term in April 2014. Commissioner Macknay had not been replaced.
Just a few months after his implied claim to the
moral high ground, and without any further public comment on the intimidation
and harassment of the investigators, Barnett lashed out against the very
concept of the Corruption and Crime Commission. In an angry outburst he alleged
that the agency previously described as underemployed due to the integrity of
the Liberal-National coalition, was in fact underemployed because it was
malfunctioning. There were multiple points of failure within the organisation
and it was not operating as it should. Barnett’s answer was to tell concerned
citizens that he would;
‘... have a thorough look at the operation of the
CCC over the course of this year...’
If the Corruption and Crime Commission, the
agency monitoring our government, is not functioning adequately then we can
draw no conclusions at all from any results, or any lack of results, coming from
that agency. A non-functioning CCC offers citizens no reassurance at all that
corruption is not occurring. During the seven years of the Liberal-National
government the performance of the CCC has waned. Less than a decade ago
Commissioner Hammond led a team that citizens could rely on. Under Hammond a
robust and powerful CCC was undertaking covert surveillance of ministers,
public officials and lobbyists; offering reassurance that Brian Burke and his
cronies would no longer exercise influence in government. Today we have a
crippled malfunctioning CCC agency that appears cowed and broken, offering no
reassurance to citizens of WA.
If, as alleged, Corruption and Crime Commission
officers did suffer workplace harassment and intimidation then the public needed
to know who the perpetrators were. Just who was persecuting them? And why? For
what purpose were they being harassed and intimidated? Paying off the CCC
officers under a confidential arrangement is not tackling the source of the
problem. Allowing CCC officers to leave without any payment is no better; it
may be cheaper but it does not address the problem in the organisation.
On 5th February 2015 Barnett went further than to
merely attack the CCC; he dropped a bombshell on the WA public when he explained
to a 6PR radio audience how seven years of the Liberal-National Party had
affected the integrity of the government of Western Australia. Premier Barnett
believed that under the Liberal-National stewardship we were living in a state
where;
‘... most corruption in WA occurs in local
government.’
The Opposition, perhaps mindful of the Premier’s
boast six months earlier, pounced on this admission.
On 17th February the Hon David Templeman, member
for Mandurah, asked the Minister for Local Government if he agreed with the Premier. Templeman wanted
confirmation that most corruption was in
local government. The Hon Tony Simpson, Minister for Local Government,
could neither support nor deny Barnett's assertion.
How could Simpson confirm where corruption occurs
in this state?
Barnett had already explained that the Corruption
and Crime Commission has not been functioning, the investigations necessary to
provide assurances of good governance or evidence of corruption just have not
happened during the Liberal-National term of office.
What Simpson did do, and for which he deserves
credit, was to provide an answer that appeared refreshingly honest;
‘Put it this way: there
have been a considerable number of inquiries to do with local government and
other sectors as well. The important parts are what has to happen and what has
happened to local government. There does not seem to be much scrutiny around
local government... There are annual electors’ meetings and general
questions at local councils, but there is no actual scrutiny of local
government. This is one of the things I have noticed since I have been the
minister; there are some areas we probably have to look at. There needs to be
more scrutiny of local government... The Premier is probably
right in saying there needs to be a bit more scrutiny of local government. I
agree that something needs to happen... It is about making sure
our local governments are accountable to ratepayers.’
The Minister for Local Government is right, his
carefully chosen words, '... there does not seem to be much scrutiny around
local government', give the listener an opportunity to absorb the scrutiny
failure a little before facing up to the harsh reality; '... there is no
actual scrutiny of local government'.
Take note readers; he said it plain and simple. The Minister for
Local Government clearly stated that there is no scrutiny of local government in WA.
Are you outraged yet?
But notice how he tucked the harsh reality up
with the softer phrases either side, firstly 'There does not seem to be much
scrutiny', then reality 'there is no actual scrutiny', followed by
'... there are some areas we probably have to look at', '... There needs to
be more scrutiny,' '... there needs to be a bit more scrutiny'
Primacy and recency are important when delivering
any message because we remember the first and the last items of information we
receive most clearly. There is no
scrutiny of local government. This is an important statement for us, the paying
public, to remember. There can be very few institutions operating multi-million
dollar budgets where there is no scrutiny,
but local government in WA operates this way.
The day after the Minister responsible for Local
Government told us that there was no scrutiny the Treasurer, Mike Nahan, made a number
of comments focusing on the City of Canning. He stated that, ‘The council had been seriously mismanaged
for periods of time.’ Later in the debate he was critical of many other
councils expressing his opinion that;
‘There is a serious lack of democracy in local
government’.
The CEO of any shire within WA can operate with
the executive authority of a feudal baron.
Does that cause outrage?
He has nobody to answer to in State Government.
Unless the elected councillors are tough, resilient and challenging people who will
provide scrutiny a local government CEO can do whatever he wishes. Most Council members are not going
to challenge the CEO, and the reasons why they are not will become clearer as
we explore some of the issues that arose within Augusta-Margaret River Shire.
Long after the WA Inc debacle we saw a number of
very unfortunate Ministerial mishaps when it was recognised that the influence
of Brian Burke was continuing unabated. He no longer held any political office
but his power over Ministers could still achieve his goals. After the Corruption
and Crime Commission outed a number of Ministers, forcing their resignations, it
seemed for a short while that Burke’s power might wane. Instead the CCC itself
was infiltrated by malignant forces and stripped of its moral authority by
press reports of corrupt public officials operating within its ranks.
But maybe the government ministers were a little
more wary of dealing with Brian Burke. Could he continue to be useful to his developer
mates, continue to collect his retainers every month? Certainly he could if he
worked at a lower level of government. A level of government where there is no scrutiny?
Local government can be a very lucrative industry, a sector where corporations
can take windfall profits from land development deals and negotiate lucrative
procurement contracts. Describing local government as an industry may seem a clumsy turn of phrase to many readers, but this
is how the CEOs think of themselves, and it is also how state government thinks
of them. The following item comes from a local government conference brochure;
‘The Hon. Tony Simpson MLA, Minister for Local
Government, and David Templeman MLA, Opposition Spokesperson
The Minister and Opposition Spokesperson will present
their views on the future development and direction of the industry and
how they intend to influence this through their policies.’
In their minds they are captains of industry,
making deals and visioning dreams, reporting to and receiving instructions from
state government. They are doing their masters’ bidding in determining the
social, economic and environmental dimensions of their towns and districts. For a fuller explanation of how this
contemporary system of placing the considerations of so-called economic
development before society affects our communities and our lives, I recommend
Dennis Glover’s book, “An Economy is not a Society.”
Are we living in 21st century
fiefdoms?
Maybe corruption has shifted from state
government to local government under the Liberal-National coalition? Such a
move might seem logical, given that the state parliament’s operation of the WA
Inc entity had been rumbled some twenty years ago.
Back in 2007 Hon Rob Johnson had addressed the
Assembly during a session debating a motion censuring the former Labor Premier
of WA, Alan Carpenter, for his poor judgement in the way he dealt with
lobbyists Brian Burke and Julien Grill and their activities around parliament.
Johnson said;
‘... The trouble is that there are corrupt
influences in every ministerial office and corrupt influences in public service
in general. I was once told that Brian Burke boasted that if the Liberals were
to ever gain power, it would take them 20 years to root out the people that he
had placed in the public service. He was right, because many of them are still
around today...’
As the WA Inc mob recognised their activities
were being revealed they may well have decided to shift position, adapt and
evolve their enterprises, and organise their affairs so that profits could
continue to flow from the taxpayer to the cronies’ corporations even after Burke
and his mates were stripped of their parliamentary power and privilege.
Certainly there are references within parliament
that suggest to the lay reader that public service appointments may well have been
made not on merit but on willingness to serve Burke;
“Before
coming to government, I was a public servant when Brian Burke and Julian Grill
reigned supreme and were parachuting their minions into the public service one
after another.”
Without wishing to fall into Barnett's trap,
assigning inappropriate cause and effect relationships, there do appear to be a
number of changes that occurred as the WA Inc era was ending that history might
interpret as positioning. The characters who manipulated state affairs so
adroitly for their personal advantage during Burke’s years in government may
well have orchestrated policies and legislation to allow them another avenue of
enterprise when the axe inevitably fell. Good players will always have an exit
strategy, a way to transition smoothly to the next profitable venture, and in
Burke’s case we know he quickly moved from politics into property development.
In 1993 the Institute of Public Affairs warned
that pressing ahead with local government reform to enable a more
entrepreneurial approach at local government level would not be appropriate
after the lessons of WA Inc.
Was that warning ignored?
Although agreeing reform of local government was
required the Institute of Public Affairs recognised that permitting a degree of
entrepreneurial ability at local government level would be less than desirable.
The WA Inc activities had revealed the control failures inherent when the
checks and balances of parliament were removed by the Executive State. Democratic
freedoms are not served by the Executive State.
As joint editor of the agenda for reform and
recovery published by the Institute of Public Affairs our
current WA Treasurer, Mike Nahan, will be familiar with the reasoning behind
the concern that organisation expressed regarding proposals affecting local
government .
In February 2015 Mike Nahan said; “There is a serious lack of democracy in
local government.”
I wonder what led him to such a conclusion and
wonder if he will ever elaborate on this, share his thoughts, honestly.
Is he outraged?
Ordinary ratepayers would probably make a strong
case that any entrepreneurial
activity within local government would be so high risk, so undesirable, that to
pass legislation allowing it would be a failure in the duty of care of our
state government. Entrepreneurial activity by its very nature involves risk. In
local Councils there is no opposition to offer genuine criticism or debate regarding
proposals, no statutory requirement to retain a verbatim record of how
every elected member presented their arguments for and against any proposals
for investment in enterprises, no accountability. Add to the mix a
Department of Local Government offering no scrutiny and the opportunity for
corruption is increased considerably.
The Local Government Act that eventuated in 1995
produced a model for local government that offered the corporate players in WA
windfall profits with no risks, removed any democratic process from the local
government, and failed to establish any scrutiny of the activities of this
newly created hydra beast.
Local
government law specialist, S.Withnall, argues
that there is now a system of local government within WA whereby we have 140
plus separate institutions each headed by a CEO and overseen by the Department of Local Government. But Withnall is
wrong. As the Minister for Local Government, Tony Simpson, has made very clear
to us all there is no oversight, no scrutiny of local government in WA.
We must conclude that Withnall was writing about a perception she has gained
somehow, that there could be
oversight, rather than the reality that Minister Simpson explained actually
occurs in local government on a day to day basis here in WA.
Our
lives are controlled by an unscrutinised hydra beast.
After twenty years of domination by the local
government CEOs, the state government appears to be reluctant to attempt any
real reform. Local government in WA is not working and in a truly
entrepreneurial enterprise any non-beneficial units would be facing the axe.
Instead the Local Government Act allows the CEOs to regularly cull out any
public officials who might be displaying concerns about how the institution is
operating. Culling those who show tendencies of the whistleblower is a tactic
Brian Burke was familiar with, and a tactic which ensures the institution can
rely on total control through the dominant paradigm of collegiality.
Before venturing further into describing events
and issues in local government observed here in Margaret River, and how this
shire was transformed into Margaret River Inc, the concept of the commons
commission and a systems approach need some explanation.
(extract from a new book discussing the issues in WA local government focused on Margaret River Inc, please feel free to comment)
No comments:
Post a Comment