Nonsense Proposals and How To Respond

It's worth taking a close look at the five proposals that potentially affect the City of Vincent.

The two proposals from the State Government (Perth/Vincent and Bayswater/Bassendean) do not meet the requirement of the Local Government Act to "set out clearly…the effects of the proposal on local governments". The proposals are no more than a one-and-a-half page description of boundary changes with only two paragraphs of broad assertions of effects unsupported by any analysis.

The Local Government Advisory Board cannot recommend either of these proposals because they do not comply with the requirements of the Local Government Act. If the LGAB does recommend them, the decision will be open to (almost certainly successful) challenge in the courts.

The City of Perth proposal also cannot be recommended by the LGAB, as it would leave the remainder of Vincent (with the possible exception of the riverside area of Banks Precinct that would go to Bayswater/Bassendean under the WA Government and City of Bayswater proposals) as an unviable local government.

There is no current proposal for the remainder of Vincent to be amalgamated with any other local government.

If the LGAB were to consider that some other proposal for the remainder of Vincent should be considered (as would be required by its recommending the City of Perth proposal), the Local Government Act (Schedule 2.1, para 4, sub-para 3) effectively requires that the process be started anew.

The City of Bayswater proposal, that would annex the riverside area of Banks Precinct, should not be supported partly because its arguments with respect to the Banks Precinct (eg 'proximity' to Morley centre) are erroneous but, crucially, because there was no consultation (or even communication) with either the City of Vincent or the residents of Banks Precinct during the development of the proposal. 

The City of Vincent proposal also should not be supported because:

Click to enlarge

a)      It was made under duress after the WA Government released its initial proposals in July 2013 and stated that it would only consider minor variations from those proposals. The extent of variations since made by the WA Government, for a variety of reasons, clearly invalidates any responses made.

b)   The City of Vincent has, in the light of (a), above, and responding to community views, modified its position (5th November 2013) to be, first and foremost, in favour of retaining Vincent as a separate entity.

The only possible response to these proposals is to argue for rejection of all five. But we need to be careful in doing so that we also state a clear and unambiguous preference for Vincent to remain as it is - supporting the expressed community view and the most recent Council position on the matter. If retaining Vincent is not achievable, then the City of Vincent's proposal is the next best option.