Opinion: Regarding the current financial situation at the City of Greater Geraldton, and a brief overview of the last 8 years

/

For those of you late to the scene, you might wonder why the Geraldton public are so distrustful of the local council. 

Flash back to 2006

A recommendation was made to the Minister for Local Government by the Local Government Advisory Board in August 2006 to amalgamate the Shire of Greenough with the City of Geraldton.

At that time the Shire of Greenough had a pretty good reputation in the community. They were fair to deal with and were very prompt when it came to building approvals and the like. 

The City of Geraldton did NOT have a good reputation, and many community members feared the mess that was the CoG would become the burden of the residents from the Shire of Greenough. 

But the policitians and bureaucrats felt they knew what was best for the simple citizens of the Midwest, and the Shire of Greenough residents had to petition for a referendum to be held. 

The Greenough electors managed to successfully petitioned for a referendum to determine whether the amalgamation should proceed. 

This was held on 2 December 2006, and of those who voted a majority of around 80% voted against the proposal.

However, the politicians and bureaucrats had a loophole. The Local Government Act 1995 (clause 10 of Schedule 2.1) stated as the vote did not attract 50% of registered voters, it did not meet the requirements for a valid poll.

The referendum only had a participation rate of 28.74% (much like councillor elections which still get counted).

So despite having an extremely clear picture of what a majority of people felt, those in charge at the time found a way to do what they wanted rather than what the residents wanted.

Trust was lost. 

Millions of ratepayers dollars was spent on the rebranding. Fancy new number plates were seen around town. 

But things weren't smooth in the newly created city. Building approvals banked up. Builders complained. Developers complained. 

City staff complained. Some of the good ones left. 

The mood in the town was "they don't listen to us any way", and animosity toward the council grew. 

GFC

Then after all that money was spent on rebranding and "gaining efficiencies" the global financial crisis hit and it emerged that the city of Geraldton Greenough had invested substantial amounts in sub-prime derivatives through Lehman Brothers Australia. 

Why on earth was our rate payer's money being invested in high risk complex securities? Geraldton residents were again furious, and no investigation was launched by the WA Department of Local Government. 

Council had invested $2.45 million.

Yes. Million.

Chapman Valley

After this there were discussions between the Shire of Chapman Valley and the City of Geraldton Greenough about merging. But this was under the looming threat of forced mergers from the state government. 

As soon it became clear there would be no forced mergers by the state government, the Shire of Chapman Valley said "Thanks, but no thanks". 

So like any respectful neighbour, the City of Geraldton Greenough tried to enact an aggressive boundary readjustment on the Shire of Greenough to get a chunk of rate paying land from them and of course the coveted area allocated for the Oakajee Port and Industrial Estate. 

The president of the Shire of Chapman Valley, John Collingwood, said the aggressive boundary readjustment would have destroyed the Shire of Chapman Valley, taking around 37% of the rateable income. He also told the ABC that the City of Geraldton Greenough was "trying to destroy us". 

Those were his actual words. 

So the City of Geraldton Greenough wasn't making any friends. 

The community was again in shock. Who ARE these people!?

More trust was lost. More people up in arms. People in Chapman Valley were vehemently against merging with Geraldton Greenough, and they made it clearly known to their council and the State Government. 

The border readjustment did not succeed by the City of Geraldton Greenough. 

Mullewa

Throughout 2010 and 2011 more negotiations were held. This time between the City of Geraldton-Greenough and the Shire of Mullewa, as to whether the two entities should merge.

After a long period of negotiations they decided to merge. 

A poll was requested by both communities and was held on 16 April 2011. 

Again, an overwhelming majority of voters said NO to the merger. 

In fact, in Mullewa it was 83.24% NO.

And in Geraldton-Greenough it was 72.39% NO.

It did not take a university education to realise once again the people who had actually chosen to make the Midwest home did NOT want this merger. 

However, as with EVERY local government election or poll, there was a lower than 50% turnout. 

So Mayor Carpenter, CEO Tony Brun and the rest of the team pushed forward with the unwanted merger. Because of that loophole mentioned earlier. 

The new weirdly shaped mega region was called Greater Geraldton. 

Most people were perplexed by the odd name. Greenough residents felt ripped off that their brand had now been permanently relegated to the annals of history and would no longer be a noun in daily use by the council and its staff. And many residents asked what we were "greater" than?

Surely folk who live in Mullewa don't tell their friends they live in the "Greater Geraldton" region.

It seemed the only thing the unwanted name had going for it was the ability to keep the same initials.

Most of that earlier rebranding was now money down the toilet. More was needed to be spent on the new rebranding.

The citizens of Geraldton, Greenough and Mullewa were told to drink their medicine because the educated bureaucrats knew what was good for us. There would be "efficiencies" and ultimately everyone would get more stuff for less money.

So to restate the obvious, Geraldton residents didn't want to merge. Greenough residents didn't want to merge. Mullewa residents didn't want to merge. Yet it was forced upon everyone anyway. 

The final straw

Trust toward the council and the city was at an all time low. No one believed the people at the city really had the interests and wishes of the residents at heart. It seemed like Geraldton was a grand experiment for them all to practice what they'd learned at "City Planning School". 

Then the icing on the cake. 

The 2012 rate increase. 

People were in shock. Their annual rates bill came in at a 27% increase. Some people and businesses saw increases up to 30%. 

The line from the city was that this increase was needed to cover the shortfall of rates that had been charged for years. Essentially council wasn't leaving enough money in the kitty to fix stuff, and now they needed to. And the best way to do that was put the rates up 27% in one year. 

Businesses were flabbergasted. Home owners were in shock. The Member for Geraldton Ian Blayney said he was speechless (an oxymoron to be sure, but you get the point).  

Yours truly at that point had two houses in Rangeway and a block in Wandina. In part because of that alarming rate bills along with the promise that rates would continue to increase by 7.2% for the foreseeable future, my wife and I realised we couldn't afford to keep those properties, and sold them all.

Many residents shared similar stories.

If people distrusted the council before this, they hated them with a passion afterwards.

Community groups formed. The Chamber lobbied. Meetings were held.

And the CEO Tony Brun, who was perceived as the main energy behind it all resigned and went to Perth. 

At the next council elections only 6 of the 12 councillors were up for a vote. All 6 were replaced except for Shane van Styn who was endorsed by the community group "CGG Ratepayers Demand Change" as he promised to fight for lower rates and reduced council spending. 

The position of Mayor was not up for reelection. 

 

That's a broad overview, but it brings us up to today. 

The $25million backlog

Now we're being told that decisions made by past councils and CEOs have left us with bills we cannot afford to pay. 

Never mind that the people of Geraldton complained loudly every time money was being wasted and were shut down with intelligent arguments about how necessary that particular piece of artwork or infrastructure was. 

The unwanted mergers that were rammed down our throats came with the promise of efficiency gains that never manifested. 

Instead the city is going to have to take drastic measures to curb spending. Redundancies will have to be made within the City staff. Every area of expenditure will have to be looked at to remove waste and the reduce rate payer burden.

But this is NOT drastic. It should be standard operating procedure. 

Ratepayers money should always be treated with the respect it deserves. It should have ALWAYS been the goal of the council and City staff to find ways to reduce the amount of money they need to take off us each year. 

Do we want sealed roads? Sure. 

Do we need yet another fireworks display funded by ratepayers? Not so much. 

Do we want our rubbish collected each week? Absolutely. 

Do ratepayers want to pay for free wifi for backpackers at the library when there's a perfectly good Internet cafe two doors down? Maybe not. 

The current financial situation

CGG CEO Ken Diehm (if you're not paying attention the CEO is the person who the councillors and mayor employ to run the city) understands this thoroughly. 

His media briefing regarding the CGG's current state of affairs was frank, thorough and humble. He should also be commended on the obvious care he has for the wellbeing of the employees of the City. 

It was clear that he understood that the proposed rate increases for the coming years of 5.2% are too high. He, the city staff and the council say they're going to do everything in their power to get them below that number. 

But he didn't over promise either. He was frank about the fact that there was no way future rate rises would be kept as low as the CPI (consumer price index), as the major costs incurred by the council, like power, were generally rising much more than the CPI. 

Moreover, Ken and his team had commissioned auditors to physically go out to the roads and parks, the highways and byways, to inspect all of the assets of the City.

What they came back with wasn't pretty. 

There's essentially a $25 million backlog of urgent maintenance work that needs doing. That's not the kind of news a CEO who's inherited a position following a 27% rate increase wants to hear. 

Worse than that is the projection for the future. In 2027 and 2028 there will be a spike in road infrastructure expenses that the current CGG budget simply doesn't accommodate for. It might seem like someone else's problem because it's so far away, but kicking the can down the road is what has led to the problem we have now. 

So they're facing the music. Which is something. It could all be buried in an obscure public notice  full of technical terms that would cause anyone other than an accountant to glaze over. 

But to Mr Diehm's credit they've chosen to let everyone know the actual state of the union. 

He also explicitly pointed out that every time we build something new, we inherit the costs of maintaining that item and that is hurting us. Even if the funding to build the new hotness comes from another agency, Geraldton ratepayers still bear the burden of maintaining the infrastructure. For every $10 million in new infrastructure, operating costs increase by around $300,000 a year. 

(Yes, this is logical and many of you have been pointing this out for some time.)

Crisis

I don't think this demonstrates a "crisis" like other media headlines have read. 

I think this actually represents a positive turning point in Geraldton's timeline. 

A "crisis" is having leaders who don't or won't listen to the public they're supposed to serve. 

What Ken is doing is showing he has been listening, and is prepared to make the changes needed to help relieve the burden on the ratepayers even if it makes his job a lot harder and a lot more stressful.

The "crisis" is what would happen in 10 years if we don't make some changes now. What the City is doing by offering its staff voluntary redundancies, going over expenditure with a fine tooth comb and aiming to keep rate increases as low as possible is not a crisis. 

It's good news. 

For the first time in a while it feels like Geraldton is in good hands. 

So what's going to happen? 

There will be cut backs at the city. Staff are going to be offered voluntary redundancies. Ken says these will only be granted where the job can be done by someone else, and won't be granted to poor performers. They're looking for at least 20, and will assess the situation in the new year. (To their credit, the city acknowledges this could be an anxious process for some staff members, and has a free employee assistance program in place. Also credit for announcing now and not a post Christmas shock.)

Then the city directors and managers are basically going to look at all the services that ratepayers currently fund. From the Aquarena, to the Queens Park Theatre, to your rubbish being collected, roads built and maintained etc etc. Everything. 

These services will be categorised into "mandatory" and "non-mandatory" services. Expect things like your bins being collected to be mandatory. But things like free wifi at the foreshore isn't exactly a mandatory service. 

Once it's clear what is mandatory, a budget will be done based on these services.

Then non-mandatory services will be rated in order of priority. The city says it will look for input from the community and city staff to do this. 

Any available funds, less around $7.5million needed to fill the gap immediately, will be applied to the non mandatory services in order of their priority. 

This is where it could get messy. One man's mandatory service is another man's waste of money. You might want more shows at the QPT. Another person might prefer more books at the library. Getting a cohesive list of priorities for non-mandatory services might be a challenge, but at least it's being addressed. 

Any services that are unfunded basically don't make the cut, and will be recommended to council for discontinuation. 

The city is also going to look at the "level" of services it offers. For example (and this is our own example, not a prediction) the city might deem the tip is important to keep running, but might reduce the number of hours it is open. 

In addition to this, the city will be assessing what it does with its current assets. In early January it will be reviewing all its assets to determine if they need to be replaced or can be sold or disposed of. 

New capital works (that's code for "building new stuff") will also be reduced, unless a prior community commitment has already been given. 

Revenue

Other non-rates revenue streams will be looked at. 

There are lots of services that rate payers are essentially subsidising at the moment which might be able to be charged for, and these potential streams of income will be looked at. 

So what does this all mean? 

For most of us, we won't notice a thing. The services we know and use will carry on, and hopefully any future rate increases will be reasonable and bearable. 

For some of us there's a chance a beloved ratepayer funded service may reduce or disappear. That seems to be the reality of the financial situation we currently have. 

But long term what would be most exciting is if a culture of genuinely listening to community feedback and acting on it becomes the pillar of how the City of Greater Geraldton operates. 

Why I love Orana Cinema

/

Pic: wikipedia

There was a time in my childhood, perhaps around age 12, when it dawned on me that every movie I ever saw at the cinema was great. I didn't understand the need for movie critics. The entire experience of going to the movies was magical, especially compared to my tiny 34cm tv at home. No matter what was showing I enjoyed it. 

Sadly, those says of being easily pleased are gone. But I still love the experience of going to the movies. Even by myself. Actually, preferably by myself. 

It wasn't all that long ago that Geraldton didn't have a proper cinema complex. I recall coming often to Geraldton as a kid and the movie going experience being less than quality. 

But our current complex of four screens in our humble town of 40,000 has quickly become taken for granted, as though it were a community service funded by tax payers.

But I think we should be grateful for businesses like Orana in Geraldton. 

The truth is I wouldn't be opening a movie theatre in today's economic climate. Illegal downloads of movies are on the rise, great quality TV shows that never hit the silver screen are more common, Netflix is set to hit our shores early in 2015, and with the roll out of NBN it's becoming easier and easier to just stream a high definition movie of your choosing without leaving the couch.

But I still love heading to Orana. They're always friendly. The place is kept very clean. The cinemas and sound quality is great, and they even went to the trouble recently of adding the much requested eftpos. Moving the ticket booth to the snacks bar makes the purchase experience quicker too.

They even have a wheelchair/pram friendly screen that allows you to enter the theatre at the top of the stairs rather than the bottom.  

Orana also go to the trouble of hosting charity events, special arthouse screenings and other events throughout the year. It's likely these aren't big money earners, but it's great to see they're trying to play a role in the community beyond just selling movie tickets. 

They also made a small change recently that you may not have noticed; starting the movies after the scheduled time. 

This might not make sense if you're not from Geraldton. Because everything is so close here, we usually know exactly how many minutes we need to get to places on time. However, this doesn't result in us getting to places on time, it means we're always two minutes late... church, movies, whatever. 

Orana used to schedule the movies so the ads played before the stated start time, then the movie started dead on the scheduled time. This meant I was often missing the first two minutes of a movie. But they changed that and now I happily waltz in in the middle of the ads, find a seat and start eating popcorn. 

I would hate to see the Orana building empty like so many others at that end of town. And I would REALLY hate to not have a top quality cinema in Geraldton. I just reckon there's nothing better than sitting down to watch an engrossing story with too much sugar and salt on a massive screen.

Thanks Orana. 

 

TOO MUCH, TOO LITTLE, OR DON’T OVERTHINK IT?

/

A few weeks ago my son Jimmy had a mate over for the day.  The boy had been to our home before and he knew the drill - no tablets, computers, ipods, wiis, xboxes or anything else along those lines.  And so he walked in the door and headed straight for the old organ.  Jimmy picked up the ukulele.  The two of them spent hours churning out their own brand of 2014 pop/rock.  Sweet and hilarious entertainment.  They also squeezed a car wash into the day, and while I walked the dog on the beach they built life-sized racing car in the sand.

In the past this little boy has gone so far as to say that a play date with Jimmy was the highlight of his holidays.

The thing is, we do have a tablet.  And an old laptop.  A very old dvd player.  My daughter Jessie has an ipod nano with music only on it.   I have a smart phone but that is, very specifically, mine.

Sometimes I worry.  Am I denying my Gen Z offspring, the first generation never to have experienced the world pre-internet, a basic right of passage?  What kind of psychological disaster am I going to cause by not purchasing minecraft?

Is my steadfast refusal to purchase such things more about my sanity?  How can I not take positive peer reviews for the kids into account?  Yet… my social media stream regularly features parents having child-related minecraft battles.  Parents of younger kids unsure about what is/isn’t an acceptable amount of screen time each day.  Steve Jobs seemed to have some firm ideas on the whole issue.

My approach - and just to be very clear, I’d never judge anyone else for their decisions because I don’t walk in their shoes – I don’t go there.  I don’t buy it so the kids can’t consume it.

During the winter sport season I was chatting with a friend and another mum, running through the crazy week ahead for Jessie.  Extra-curricular activities like the school play, interschool sports and an extension learning program.  From my point of view it was merely a remark on the fact that everything seemed to have culminated into the one week, but the other mum made a rapid-fire comment.  “Sounds like an overachieving child”.

WTF??? This is my child you’re talking about and it wasn’t my intent to brag!  But of course I went home and pondered her comment.  Do I push my kids too hard?  I think about the lack of electronic devices in the house and my conclusion is no, they’re not pushed too hard.  They’re not pushed at all.  I suspect they have more time on their hands than many kids because they’re not in front of a screen.

I reflected on the year my kids have had.  The new things they’ve learnt or experienced at home.  How to kick and mark a footy.  Monopoly and Yahtzee.  Poker, blackjack, and a raft of other card games.  How to build a card tower.  Every loom band design you can imagine (yes ok, hello internet).  Large and small art projects.  How to make soap, cook a meal.  Grow strawberries and herbs.  They’ve washes cars for many of the neighbours.  Built amazing sandcastles.  Danced, sung, played their instruments – and no, they don’t get lessons.  Bounced on the trampoline, mastered the hula hoop.  Spent hours riding bikes, scooters and skateboards.  Climbed trees and built cubby houses.  Fallen out of trees.  Seen snakes, bandicoots, turtles, so many different birds.  Learnt how to identify several plant species.  Made cards and presents for every family member and friend in existence.

Is that overachieving, or is that because they’re finding things to do?  Don’t’ get me wrong – these things happen in mini-crazes.  One week it’s card towers.  Then next Monopoly.  And so it goes.  I’m not really sure if this is overachieving, or rather being pushed by some kind of default.  And because they have this zest at home for finding new things to do, it seems to spill into their school life.

When Jessie was a small babe and I a much more naïve parent, I remember saying to someone of my mother’s generation “how can I be sure that my words and actions today aren’t going to be my f***-ups of tomorrow?”

My own conclusion has always been that I can’t be sure.  I can only do what I believe to be best, and best right now is to keep doing what we’re doing.  Besides, I can’t help but think that if Jimmy’s little mate is a critic to be listened to, then life in our house is ok.

People who commit crime are not stupid

/

Have you ever been at the shops and watched parents fail to control their kids? 

"Get off that now and come." Kid doesn't move. 
"Get off it now or you'll be in trouble." Kid doesn't move.
"You'll be in trouble if you don't come now." Kid doesn't move.
"I'll leave you here if you don't come now." Kid doesn't move. 
"I mean it. You'll be left behind."

You get the idea.

Many of us parents are guilty of this.

We make threats we don't or can't carry out and essentially teach our kids not to believe what we say. We eventually snap and punish the child when we're finally fed up, but really we know it's our own fault for teaching our kids to ignore our instructions.

Yet when it comes to our state's judicial system, we make the exact same mistake. We catch people for committing a crime, give no punishment; catch them again, give no punishment; catch them again, give them a suspended sentence; catch them again, give them a really really strong warning that this is the last time; catch them again, tell them they have exhausted all their chances and they're now off to jail. 

But it's too late to think jail will do much. They have become rather good at stealing and perhaps even dependent on the income it provides. And they genuinely don't know if they'll be in trouble or not each time they're caught. 

Flashback:

I was about 4 or 5 when I stole a packet of gum from the checkout at Coles. 

Mum found out. 

She didn't treat me as though I had stolen a packet of gum. She treated me like I'd stolen a car. I was in SOOOO much trouble. 

Part of my punishment was the shame of returning to the store and apologising to the staff. I was deeply embarrassed, and had stirred the wrath of my mother like I'd never seen before. 

Guess what; I didn't steal any more. 

At the time I obviously didn't want to be punished. It was painful and it could have been argued no real harm was done in taking a small packet of gum. But my mum was wise enough to know that if she didn't stamp that behaviour out right at the start, I might try stealing other things. 

Now I am grown, I'm extraordinarily grateful that I was punished as a young child and put on a better path. 

Flashback: Criminal neighbours

At 16 I realised I had reached the pinnacle of all wisdom and left home to live with a friend. 

This "friend" unfortunately enjoyed chronic amounts of marijuana.

We also happened to reside a few doors down from some folk who enjoyed drugs and living differently. 

Due to the presence of weed at our place, these delightful neighbours decided to befriend us. There wasn't really much choice on our part as to the depth of the relationship. 

I got to know these individuals and tried and find out what made them tick. Here's a few interesting things that etched themselves into my memory. 

They used to get dressed up and "go to work"

That's what they called it. They would actually decide "today we're going to go and do a bunch of break and enters." They called them B and E's because that sounded cool. They would put on the nicest clothes they had, do their hair, and venture out into the suburbs to see what loot they could find. And they called it going to work. 

They didn't have a job, and they didn't want a job

Each morning I would get up, get dressed and walk to my job at a pet shop where I would clean up animal feces, serve impatient customers, and be on my feet for around 9 hours before walking home, all for about $400 a week.

I distinctly remember my conversation with one of these neighbours who was laughing at my decision to go to work each day.

Me: "Don't you want a job?"

Him: "Why would I want a job? I get money for free!" he said half laughing. "And if I need any more we can do some B & E's."

Me: "Don't you have to look for work in order to get the dole?"

Him: "All you have to do is get the yellow pages and pick some business names and write down their phone numbers."

They knew what to do if they got caught

These guys didn't just rob the odd house on occasion. They had all robbed HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS of homes. Another of the neighbours shared some tips with me about how to avoid jail.

"Just don't say anything. Deny it. It doesn't matter if the cops catch you, just deny it. They have to prove it and they usually can't. I've got mates who have gone to jail but it's because they talked to the cops."

I was shocked, still am to be honest, that these people were so calculated in their decision to avoid legitimate employment, collect taxpayer funded welfare, and commit as many burglaries as they felt like. 

But it eventually dawned on me. They're not stupid. 

The economics of crime

Economist David D. Friedman has an interesting essay published on the Library of Economics and Liberty.

He asserts that "A mugger is a mugger for the same reason I am an economist—because it is the most attractive alternative available to him. The decision to commit a crime, like any other economic decision, can be analyzed as a choice among alternative combinations of costs and benefits."

In other words, people commit a crime after weighing up the risk vs reward, or the cost vs the benefit. 

They may not open a spreadsheet and run a calculation. 

But, when deciding whether to rob a house or not, the criminal is generally aware of two factors:

A: Roughly how likely it is they will be caught.

B: Roughly what the punishment might be if they are in fact caught. 

Megan McArdle who writes at BloombergView is the author of the book "The Up Side of Down: Why Failing Well is the Key to Success". 

Earlier in the year she was interviewed by well known economist and communicator Russ Roberts, research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. 

Here's a fascinating extract from their conversation:

Roberts: Part of what we are talking about here is responsibility, second chances, moral hazard. All these things tie in to these decisions that we make at the policy level. And it's interesting to me that you profile a parole system that is relentlessly unforgiving, remarkably successful, and actually reduces the problem in an interesting way. So, talk about that briefly. We're low on time, but it's such a great story. 
McArdle: It is a great story. So, it's a judge in Hawaii who looked at the normal parole system. Basically, you've got sort of a suspended prison sentence. And you have to show up for your probation appointments, take regular drug tests, and so forth.
And what happens in a lot of cases is that people violated their parole a bunch of times. And then eventually after 10 or 20 times the probation officer gets fed up and says, Okay, that's it; you are going to prison; you are not complying and we are going to send you.
The judge looked at this, Judge Alm. He said, this is crazy. He said, what we should do is what you do with your kids: every time you violate, we punish you. Instead of nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, Bam!--5 years in prison.
And so that's what he did: he said, every single time you violate, you are going to jail. But only for a few days. And it has cut the rate of people who end up with prison terms in half.
They save the taxpayer money. And the probationers love it. It's one of the rare kind of win-win.
And I think this actually goes to why bankruptcy is great, and why this works better than traditional probation. Which is, you think about punishment--failure should not, as I say--it should hurt. Which is how you say, Don't do that. But you want it to hurt in a very specific way. And how do you think about that?
First thing, the pain should not be crippling. Right? Second, it should always happen. It should follow from things that don't work. Or in the case of probation often are things that are morally wrong. It happens every time. And then the third thing is that it should enable you to move on. Right?
And that is actually what this is focused on, is keeping you out of jail, keeping you connected to the labor market, to your family, not prisoners where you can learn more about being a criminal.
And it's phenomenally successful at focusing people on the future instead of focusing on their past. Because they are still in the community and they are still learning to be functioning members of the community. So, it's a phenomenally powerful. Because it does hurt. And it hurts immediately.
Over the past 50 years we've been struggling with this crime problem. The answer, though, has been harsher. Three-strikes and you are out laws. Harsher prison sentences. And what Judge Alm said--and what Mark Kleiman, from him I learned about this and who has written a great book on this called When Brute Force Fails--is that this is exactly the wrong way to think about it. (Click here for link to book.)
The thing is not to make the punishment more terrible. It's to make it more consistent.
And it's just remarkably effective.
And I wanted to put this in the book, because I end by talking about forgiveness and how important forgiveness is, and how much cheaper it is than we usually think. We usually spend too much time worrying about abuse and too little time worrying about the people whose lives are affected when we punish them. But that in this case, you do need to punish people.
But then how do you do it so that you maximize the chances of rehabilitation and minimize the damage to both society and the person? And this is why it's such a great story. Because you don't report on a lot of policy stories where there genuinely seem to be very few tradeoffs. But this is one of them.

Click here for full interview.

I found the above conversation fascinating as it asserts that the knee jerk reaction to a crime problem doesn't need to simply be "tougher sentences".

That may be the way to win votes as it appeals to anyone who is a victim of crime, and seems to make sense. But someone has to pay for the prison guards. The taxpayer ends up getting robbed twice, once when his home gets broken into, and again when he has to pay the costs of incarcerating the criminal. 

But there are real world examples of policy makers and enforcers replacing randomised severity with swiftness and certainty of punishment by clearly specifying the rules and then delivering the promised sanctions every time the rules are broken.

And it's working. 

NewsHour Weekend profiles an innovative probation program in Hawaii that has been so successful in reforming offenders and keeping them out of prison, it's now being copied in courtrooms across the nation.

Learn more about Judge Steven Alm and Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) program at the below links. 

Video presentation from Judge Alm

Wikipedia entry for HOPE

 

Regarding Suicide Awareness

/

Growing up I always thought my Grandfather had died from a sickness. 

One day I learned that he had in fact taken his own life before I was born. It's true that he was sick, but there was a shame over the family with what he had done, and the matter was never discussed. 

As I grew older, I learned that the topic was not open for discussion, and never would be. 

One day when I was around 20 an uncle of mine hanged himself. I cried and cried, and wished I had been able to be there to tell him he was important before he chose to end his life. I wasn't close with many of my aunts or uncles, but he had spent some quality time with me several years before when I really lacked an older male in my life, so I saw him as quite special. His suicide affected me quite a bit. 

Since that time I have had other family members attempt suicide and suffer from depression, but it's always been brushed under the carpet and forgotten about as quickly as possible. 

I often wondered why there was such a stigma associated with depression in general. When someone had the flu, a broken bone or an allergy it was shouted from the roof tops. Empathy would flood in like a dam had broken, and there was no shame on the bearer of the illness or injury. 

But then I started to hear others talk about those with "depression" as if they were fakers and attention seekers. I heard the conversations and remarks about "sooks" and how suicide was "selfish" and self harm was just attention seeking. Even those who acknowledged depression was a real thing still spoke as if those who had it were inferior in some way. 

Being around a religion where "killing yourself is murder and murderers go to hell" didn't help much either. 

So whenever I felt depressed for no reason or had a thought of ending it all I sure as heck wasn't going to tell anyone. 

And as I look around today I see the same struggle in our culture. We haven't yet arrived at a place where people struggling with issues like suicide can feel safe to discuss the matter with the loved ones in their lives without judgement.    

Accidental deaths and murder are widely reported in the media, but if a death is suspected as suicide it is more often than not kept silent. I understand this is out of respect to the grieving families, but the problem this has created is that the only time we are told there's a problem with suicide in our community is when we see a statistic from the ABS presented to us every few years, or perhaps a survey gets published by a community organisation. 

But surveys and ABS data does not make for strong public campaigning fuel. The reason we make a loud noise about other matters like deaths in custody, crime rates, child abuse etc is because there are real stories of real people we emotionally connect with.

Real stories from real people is what elicits empathy from us and prompts us to demand change from legislators, start community groups, verbalise our opinions and reach out and support those around us who need us. 

Geraldton has been in national headlines over the last week following the suicide of an 11 year old boy. And there have been at least two other suicides we have been made aware of but do not have the blessing of family members to share details of.

Reading the articles published by The Australian and others regarding the death of the 11 year old, it seems many want to place all the blame squarely on the government.

It can be argued that more could be done in terms of resources and energy being directed to this problem, but I believe the guilt for the status quo is something our entire community needs to shoulder. We can all take steps to change our attitudes and remove the stigma attached with depression and mental illness.

I don't mean to diminish the guilt on the part of any entity that had the power to assist and didn't, but often it's easier to blame the proverbial "government" than admit we are the ones who need to take action. 

Mick and Rose Weber and Sarah Whitmarsh are some locals who are working to eliminate the stigma associated with mental illness. 

They have a Facebook Group you can check out and join:  https://www.facebook.com/groups/CanningStockRoutWalkingTrekforSuicideAwareness/

This is from the "ABOUT" section of the group:

My husband Mick and I (Rose) started our walk of the Canning Stock Route on the 1st July 2014. Unfortunately a few weeks in Mick became very unwell with a collapsed ureter and had to be flown out for emergency surgery (jj stent) at RPH.

Just like life there are always bumps in the road, the aim is to never give up, you have to adapt and move on but don't give up.

This is where Sarah Whitmarsh comes in. Sarah was originally one of our sponsors, she has generously volunteered to do the whole trek with me. Sarah has also lost her brother to suicide, with Sarah's past and mine we are united in creating awareness and stopping the stigma associated with all mental illness and suicide prevention.

Mick will still be coming but is not allowed to walk it so he will be in a support vehicle and our son Saxon in a second support vehicle.

Due to Mick now needing further surgery to try and save his kidney, we have decided to leave the trek till May 2015 due to it getting too hot after Mick's recuperation in the next few weeks.

Stay tuned for updates and fundraising between now and when we leave.

The aim is to create suicide awareness, we want to show people no matter how hard the road is ahead you never give up, just keep going one foot in front of the other. The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step and our motto is Dream, Believe, Achieve. Every life is so worth it, don't give up ever!

Here's a link to a heartfelt comic by Erika Moen. It gives the reader more empathy towards those experiencing suicidal thoughts, and hope to anyone who may also be suffering. https://medium.com/the-nib/i-want-to-live-6a40fbc76ef4

If you want to speak up on the issues of suicide, depression or mental illness head to the Letters to the Editor section of our website. Click here. 

If you need help or someone to talk to, the good news is there's lots available. Men might like to check out The Shed Online (a service from Beyond Blue- click image below) or visit Beyond Blue to see the services they have available. http://www.beyondblue.org.au/get-support/

Click to visit The Shed Online

Regarding motor vehicle accidents in Geraldton and the safety of our roads

/

As I was driving home today (Tuesday Nov 4 2014) south along the NWCH past Shell, I saw a green ute go to pull out of the service station's driveway. The driver was turning right, and there was a large semi trailer parked at the driveway, completely blocking the view of the ute. 

Despite the obvious inability to see any cars that would drive up past the truck, the driver decided to pull out and try his luck. 

As I watched this happen I saw a car approaching that would not have been able to see the green ute. I quickly put my brakes on and pulled to the left, bracing for impact. 

Fortunately the oncoming car swerved far enough and dodged the green ute, and I breathed a sigh of relief. 

Why on earth would that ute driver have thought it was ok to pull out when he couldn't see what was there?

About two weeks ago, I was heading North toward Bunnings along the same lovely highway, in the right hand lane. 

A four wheel drive on a side street on the left was turning left onto the highway. 

No big deal, she has plenty of room, I thought. 

But she decided to go into the right hand lane. My lane. 

I swerved right a little, but there was nowhere to go without having a head on collision with oncoming traffic. I hit the horn to wake the woman up and get her out of my lane. 

She swerved back right and I lived to die another day. 

She pulled in to Bunnings and I followed her and approached her vehicle. I'm not sure what I was hoping to achieve, perhaps point out that she might have killed myself and my four year old child. She was apologetic and said she see me. I drove off, grateful to not be in an ambulance or a hearse. 

Every week, Everything Geraldton gets multiple reports of vehicle accidents, and it's always gut wrenching when a major injury or fatality happens. Trust me, it's no pleasure to report the news when there's a tragedy. Everything Geraldton does not have a "page view" revenue model like other websites, so we don't make extra money when there's a flood of web traffic following a crisis. And I'm grateful for that. 

But I have been scratching my head as to why certain locations seem to continually have vehicle incidents. 

Chapman Rd in front of Northgate (west side) seems to always attract accidents, despite a recent speed reduction. 

The NWC highway from Shell to Bunnings is horrible... I've witnessed so many accidents along there it's ridiculous. 

The 'S' bend on the Brand Hwy is expected to be realigned in the future because of vehicle accidents on a reasonably regular basis. 

The telephone pole near the Art Gallery gets a lot of flack for being so close to the road, especially after a van collided into it in November. 

I drive all of these roads very often, and it appears there's nothing tricky about them. Having lived in Perth and handled much worse traffic than any of these locations could ever offer, plus driving regularly through the ridiculous streets of Brisbane and Sydney, one would think our local streets could be handled with ease. 

- The NWC Hwy stretch:

It's a straight road. If there's a car coming, don't pull out. If you can't see if there's a car coming, don't pull out. If a car stops in front of you, make sure you're far enough back so you can stop too. Not hard. 

- Chapman Rd:

If you're pulling out of Northgate's car park, and you can't see properly, don't pull out. Or turn left if you're not comfortable crossing four lanes of traffic. Don't take a chance. It's not hard. 

- S Bend:

There's nothing tricky about this road. It's a bend. Then it's straight. Then it's a bend. It used to be 110kmh with an "advisory" to slow down to 90. Now I believe it is speed limited at 90kmh. If you obey the sign, the road feels rather slow, and not very dangerous at all. 

- The phone pole near the Art Gallery:

What the reporting on the incident last November failed to mention, was the driver who collided with the pole (collided at speed, not clipped with the mirror) had actually just pulled out of Maccas and was eating an ice-cream cone. Maybe the pole is a bit close to the road, but maybe it stopped a pedestrian from being cleaned up by a distracted driver. 

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/regional/gascoyne/a/19927202/western-powers-broken-promise/

Ranting to our friends on Facebook about how people just need to "pay attention" or something to that effect does nothing. 

We ALL know we need to pay attention. And if we're all honest with ourselves, we've all done dumb things on the road when we've lost focus for a split second. 

We've all been lost in thought for a few moments and pulled out on someone. Or maybe gone through a red light when only the turning traffic had a green. Or maybe you've had a car or motorbike in the blind spot created by your A-Pillar and narrowly missed a tragedy. 

Or maybe you're a perfect driver and can sit on high and judge everyone else without hypocrisy. 

But for the rest of us, the following might be of interest.

There's really not much traffic here, and the roads are all pretty good compared to any other city. 

There's more days of sunshine in Geraldton than the Gold Coast or the Sunshine Coast, so we don't have to worry about bad weather driving much at all. Many of us have never SEEN snow let alone driven in it. 

We know the roads we're going to drive on like the back of our hands. If something is more than 8 minutes away we seriously debate whether it's worth going. And because we know the roads so well, we're in auto pilot most of the time. 

And despite the wonderful feeling criticising the state and local governments gives us, a lot of public campaigning has lead to continued action to improve the quality and safety of our roads over the last two decades. The roads are, generally speaking, safer than they used to be. Remember when 60km/h in residential zones was the limit? Now if someone does 65 past my house I think life imprisonment is a reasonable option for them. 

When you add all these factors together, what you get is a feeling of comfort and ease when you're driving on Geraldton roads, 99% of the time. 

An interesting study published in 2010 showed most Americans mistakenly believed winter was a more dangerous time to be driving. Seems logical, given the inclement weather makes visibility and stopping harder. But it turns out the opposite is the case. Summer is more dangerous because people have let their guard down then. During winter they were extra careful. 

"Lighter traffic and pleasant scenery on rural roads can lull drivers into a false sense of security. This can lead to motorists driving at unsafe speeds, as well as being distracted, fatigued, unbelted or impaired while driving, all of which increase the likelihood of a crash."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100628124701.htm

Perhaps because 99% of the time driving on our roads isn't stressful relative to more congested places, we're not on our guard as we should be.

Driverless cars are on their way, and the roads will be a much safer place when they arrive. But until that day, we all need to redouble our efforts to pay attention on the roads. 

Massive response to local business' sign

/
Post by Everything Geraldton.

Tim, an Everything Geraldton reader, sent this pic of a sign from a local business here in Geraldton. We shared it to Facebook, and the response was massive. 

So far nearly 90,000 people have seen the pic, and may agreed with the sentiment while some thought the sign was unnecessary. 

The sign reads: Attention Customers. If you are on the phone you will not be served. 

Check out the comments on the post by clicking here. 

Do you have an opinion?

No 138 bed emergency accommodation for Geraldton

/

Back in February of last year Nationals candidate Shane Van Styn was running in the state election vying to be member for Geraldton against Liberal incumbent Ian Blayney. 

He committed to throwing his weight behind a $10million facility that would have 138 beds available as emergency short term accommodation.

Click to view full article

The 138 bed facility would have been a great asset for the community, as quoted at the time:

Mr Van Styn said the hostel would provide a much needed accommodation base for Aboriginal and non Aboriginal people in the community requiring emergency short-term housing. 
“Many Aboriginal families in particular are required to travel long distances to access services in Geraldton, which can be a significant financial burden,” Mr Van Styn said.
“A hostel would mean there would be a reduced need for mums, dads and children to sleep rough when away from home, which in turn reduces social friction and improves health outcomes.”
Mr Van Styn said The Nationals recognised the difficulties faced by families when making the journey to Geraldton, as well as the dire need for emergency housing for the wider Geraldton community and the need to provide assistance to reduce the associated hardships.

Gian De Poloni from ABC Midwest reported on Friday that the commitment has been shelved.

But Van Styn is not taking any of the blame.

To be fair to Mr Van Styn, this is what he said back then:

“If elected as the member for Geraldton in March (2013), I will make this project a local priority and work with the project proponents to ensure it gets up and running.”
— Shane Van Styn

Many Geraldton voters probably thought they would get the benefits of the Nationals promises as a Liberal/National state government was elected, but here's a quote from Premier Colin Barnet after the election

“(We will) deliver on the commitments made by the Liberal Party and the Leader of the National Party will bring his commitments to Cabinet.”
— Colin Barnett, May 2013

Which basically says: we make no assurances to keep the National Party's commitments. 

How did the election actually turn out?

If you recall, Liberal won 31 seats, Labor 21, Nationals 7, giving Liberal an outright majority and removing their need to rely on the Nationals for the balance of power. 

In WA the Liberals and Nationals are not an actual coalition, but have a power sharing agreement of sorts, thus the Nationals rely on their balance of power to get things done. 

It's noteworthy that Labor would "hit out" at the Nationals, as Labor gave their preferences to Liberal in the seat of Geraldton over the Nationals. (link)

The Oil and Gas industry hated this advertisement in the Guardian

/

On the 11th of July, Frack Free Geraldton ran this ad (it didn't have the big red x of course) in the Geraldton Guardian. Frack Free Geraldton are associated with the Conservation Council of WA (CCWA). 

10 days later, the Chief Operating Officer of the WA region of the Australian Pertroleum Production and Exploration Association Limited (APPEA) had a letter published in the Guardian. 

He essentially refuted the claims of the ad. 

Then on 29 July 2014, APPEA wrote to the owners of the Geraldton Guardian, West Australian Newspapers Ltd (SevenWest), formally complaining about the ad. 

The CCWA responded, basically declaring the complaint by Michael Bradley and the APPEA vexatious and motivated by a desire to suppress the true nature of the gas fracking industry.

SevenWest ruled in favour of the Oil and Gas industry in many of the points.

Click here to get the PDF of their ruling.

1. The APPEA claims that shale fracking is not the “process of extracting gas”. It says that hydraulic fracking is a technology used to enhance the flow of gas from a well once the drilling is completed and the rig is removed from the scene.

Totally different.

SevenWest actually ruled in favour of the advertisers CCWA in this point, stating that 

"While technically shale fracking is not a “process of extraction” but a method to enhance the extraction of gas, the ordinary reasonable reader will not be led into error by this description. The description is used generally to describe the process in an ordinary or garden variety way."

CCWA said that the APPEA doesn't own the word fracking, nor does it get to decide whether it's a noun, adjective or verb. "Fracking" is an umbrella term just like "mining" is an umbrella term used to describe many different processes that result in the extraction of minerals. 

2. APPEA contends that “toxic chemicals” are not used “to crack deep rocks”. It's the pressure that cracks the rock. 

Totally different.

But SevenWest says that's beside the point. 

Toxic Chemicals are used in the process.

But we only use a little bit of toxic chemicals!

SevenWest says because the ad says "toxic chemicals" are used, along with a drink bottle of water that has mostly turned black, you the reader will be mislead to think that ONLY toxic chemicals are used. But only .05% to .5% of the fluid pumped into the ground is toxic. 

Hope that helps you sleep at night. 

So SevenWest says the statement "toxic chemicals" is an exaggeration. 

CCWA says that as the total volume of water is so large (10-25 million litres per well) even if the toxic chemicals constitute as little as 0.05%, that's 50,000 to 125,000 litres of toxic chemicals being pumped into the earth to kill bacteria, break down minerals and initiate fissures. Per well.

The WA Health Department in their preliminary submission to the WA Inquiry on Unconventional Gas found 195 "chemicals of concern". Some are known as suspected carcinogens, others have been shown to have developmental or reproductive toxicity. Many of the chemicals have NO SAFE LEVEL OF ORAL INTAKE and many have been banned completely overseas. 

But does that image really imply that ONLY toxic chemicals are used?

The image in the ad shows a drink bottle with a syringe. The drinking container is approx 1.5 litres. 

The syringe with the black fluid has a capacity of 30mL.

The point of the image seems to be that it only takes a small amount of poison in your drinking water to render the entire amount non-potable. 

What about this image?

The APPEA has this picture of a lush green field and a big healthy tree at the top of their website, implying that using gas mining or gas usage as an energy source would be associated with such an image. While burning gas might create less CO2 than burning other non-renewable resources, this image implies things that could also be challenged.

The claims of gas being cleaner are being refuted by recent studies. While it may be cleaner to burn, the methane released into the atmosphere during the extraction process is worse the CO2 and many now believe that overall, gas is worse than coal. 

This study from Cornell University shows that when viewed on a 20 year time horizon after emission, the greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas is considerably greater than that for coal or diesel oil, when the full effects of the methane emissions are considered. 

Click here to view study.

3. Frack Free Geraldton says that fracking can “turn our water into a dangerous chemical cocktail”.

The Oil and Gas Industry says using toxic chemicals in shale fracking will not turn our water into a dangerous chemical cocktail.

Frack Free Geraldton and the CCWA didn't say that it will, just that it can. 

And the APPEA didn't say that it can't, just that it won't.

A paragraph in the SevenWest report quoted CSIRO saying the risks of water contamination are low, in most cases.

However, the CSIRO website adds that the risks are low WHEN MANAGED PROPERLY.

This is a self evident statement however, as any contamination that has occurred can obviously be chalked up in hindsight to poor management. 

What the APPEA and the Oil and Gas Industry in general haven't convinced the world of is that "this time" they'll manage it properly. 

In addition to this...

SevenWest state in their report:

"That illustration (the water bottle) would appear to reflect a substantial contamination of the water by the black “toxic chemical” fluid. In the order of 70% of the water appears to be substantially “contaminated” by the black fluid."

But again, they seemed to have missed the entire point of the image. 70% of the water isn't poisoned. ALL OF IT IS. 

And it only took 30mL to do it. 

Moreover, CCWA say that the APPEA's claims of water never being contaminated by fracking are based entirely on a narrow interpretation of the term "fracking". They say there is extensive documented evidence of fracking well failure and subsequent leakage (of gas and fracking chemicals) into ground water. 

SevenWest concluded this point by stating:

CCWA have not produced any evidence that hydraulic fracking fluid has in the course of any hydraulic shale gas fracking process permeated a fresh water aquifer. Its contentions are against the scientific literature. The advertisement is misleading in this regard.

But by SevenWest's own acceptance of the term "fracking" applying to the entire process of gas extraction, the CCWA HAS produced evidence that fresh water has been polluted. 

In fact, they linked to a very thorough study that you can read here:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264817214000609

Here's a taste:

"poor well integrity is a far more likely cause of elevated concentrations of thermogenic methane in shallow groundwater and water supplies than pathways induced solely by hydraulic fracturing. Examples of leaks in shale gas wells have been reported and fines imposed."

In other words, the upward propagation of hydraulic fractures may not be the direct cause of the contaminations of fresh water aquifers, but other parts of the overall gas extraction process have demonstrably contaminated drinking water numerous times in the past.

Why SevenWest chose to semantically interpret "fracking" in this case, but accept that it applies broadly to the entire process in point 1, is unclear. 

4. “Research in the US has found that 6% of fracking wells leak into ground water in the first year”

CCWA has admitted that this statement is not materially correct.

And the APPEA are chalking this one up as a win. 

But, they should have read the response from CCWA. 

“We have reviewed the report and agree with Appea to the extent that Professor Ingraffea’s findings related to well barrier or casing integrity failure which does not necessarily mean that leakage into groundwater has occurred in all cases. On further consideration, a more accurate statement would perhaps be that “6% of fracking wells leak into groundwater, surface water, soil or air in the first year”

So instead the ad should have read:

6% of fracking wells leak into groundwater, surface water, soil or air in the first year. 

It's not likely to make the public fond of fracking, to know that risks apply to groundwater, surface water, the soil and the air we breathe. 

The CCWA states that the claims by the APPEA that fracking has not caused contamination of aquifers are misleading and rely on a narrow definition of fracking designed to exclude well casing failure, surface spills, wastewater re-injection, and other common causes of groundwater contamination due to the fracking processes.

But SevenWest still ruled that the original statement is "misleading and deceptive".

7. Once our water is contaminated, it will be forever

APPEA challenged this, saying someone probably would be able to clean up our drinking water if a fracking company accidentally poisoned it. 

But the CCWA said that there are no regulatory requirements in WA for contaminated groundwater to be returned to its original state. They also assert that remediation measures do not actually exist for all of the chemicals which could pollute our ground water. 

The CCWA also assert that while it may be possible for remediation of contaminated groundwater, it's not possible to bring it back to its original unaltered state, even if it is technically drinkable again. 

The APPEA provided SevenWest with some links to publications of how to clean up contaminated ground water, which record that to a greater or lesser degree, and depending upon the particular circumstances, remedial steps can be taken to resolve or alleviate water contamination.

So to a "greater or lesser" degree, if your drinking water gets poisoned, it's technically possible, depending on the circumstances, maybe, to possibly make it usable again, even though there's no legal requirement to do so, and the companies who do engage in fracking have made no commitment to do so.

Comforting. 

The short TV advertisement from Clean Water Healthy Land about the risk of gas fracking that the Geraldton Guardian ad was based on. 

Getting your groceries home delivered in Geraldton

/

When I moved to Geraldton 8 years ago, I remember going online to try and order my groceries. I was rather frustrated to discover that there was no such service available here. 

Time went on, and eventually Woolworths rolled out home delivery for the city, but I no longer did the grocery shopping; that task was carried out usually by my wife. We had discussed trying home delivery once or twice, but the hassle of figuring out how to do it at the time seemed to outweigh the convenience of our existing shopping routine. 

Then one month life got extremely hectic. A combination of sickness, work demands, exhaustion, multiple young children as well as high school aged children left us with very little time and energy to get the weekly grocery shopping done, so we gave home delivery a go. We jumped on the computer, followed the prompts, ordered our items, and hoped for the best. 

Sure enough, the food rocked up when promised. The cold stuff was cold, the fruit and veg wasn't rotten, and from memory most of the items were correct. 

The home delivery option was still relatively new for the Geraldton Woolworths store, and often there would be mistakes in the goods supplied. But a friendly phone call always had the matter sorted quickly or money refunded as needed. 

We still needed to duck out and get extra milk, organic produce that Woolworths lacked and other bits and pieces here and there, but we continued to order online each week, usually on the iPad in front of a movie on a Thursday evening. 

One day a few months ago, we needed our groceries delivered at a time that Woolworths were unavailable. I forget whether it was a public holiday or something, but the end result was my wife and kids headed to the shops to purchase the week's groceries. 

When they returned, there was nothing but praises for the magical wonder that is home delivered groceries. 

"We had to handle the food 5 times!" my wife exclaimed. "Into the trolley, out of the trolley onto the check out, back into the trolley, into the car, then out of the car into the house."

It seems home delivered groceries is a bit like air conditioning; once you've had it it's hard to live without it.

So I suggest you never get your groceries home delivered as it's hard to go without it once you've tried it. 

 

 

*Footnote: We also seem to spend less when ordering online. Perhaps it's the ability to see the total as you select items, or perhaps it's the reduced temptation for items you don't really need. 

Why councillors should be paid a lot more

/

Recent news about a small increase to the allowance paid by councillors and the Mayor was met with a collective shrug by Geraldton residents. 

The press release from the city was careful to emphasise how little the increase is, and how small the overall amount councillors receive relative to the work they do and the time they contribute. 

But should councillors be receiving so little that they still need to keep their day jobs? Would they not be able to do a better job and devote more time to their work if they were actually paid a decent amount?

Giving money to politicians or elected officials rates only slightly less distasteful than letting paedophiles out of prison, in the minds of many Australians. But our cultural distrust for what are essentially public servants is mostly unmerited in my mind. 

We asked these people to do a job for us that we don't have time to do, namely, facilitating the day to day running of our city and associated services. They're not dictators, monarchs or overlords. They're school teachers, mums, dad, grandparents, small business owners, accountants... everyday local residents like you and me that put their hand up to have a go and help out.

Yet in day to day conversation around town about "the council", more vitriol is thrown towards these everyday people than is warranted. We demand they do a better job, provide more services, get in touch with the public more effectively, reduce rates and cure cancer. 

All the while they must maintain their full time jobs, keep their respective relationships with their significant others in tact, raise children, and remember to get their suits dry-cleaned for the upcoming council meeting in a week's time. 

By not paying councillors a liveable wage, we're depriving ourselves of the very thing we need; dedicated, focused individuals with skin in the game who are available to us and can better inform themselves of the myriad of issues that come across their desks/email inboxes each week. 

It's a thankless task at the best of times, and the care factor level one needs to run for council is much higher than what the average resident posses. Two thirds of us couldn't even be stuffed to go and vote at the last local election. 

It's up to the state government to set the maximum amounts a councillor can be compensated, and at the moment it's not enough to be a full time wage.

And if it were ever increased, we may increase the risk of political parties entering the local government scene like happens over east. 

But I for one would love to know the councillors I elected were actually at the council offices most of the time, providing assistance and guidance to staff as needed.

While I certainly don't have a problem criticising specific decisions made by council, I tip my hat to anyone dedicated enough to put their hand up and have a go at serving the public through this demanding role.