When Is A Forced Amalgamation Not A Forced Amalgamation?

At the 8th April rally, Opposition Leader Mark McGowan quoted Colin Barnett's assurance that his government would not force amalgamations of local governments.

There has been much argument about whether the WA Government so-called local government reform proposals are 'forced amalgamations' and hence in contravention of the promise made by Colin Barnett before the last election.

Most of this has focussed on the 'forced' part, which the proposals, with the exception of that for the Western Suburbs, clearly are.

Col Pot and Homer have vehemently denied that their proposals are 'forced amalgamations' but have rarely, if ever, clarified why this is so.

Could it be that they are relying on their own descriptions in 11 of the 12 proposals, that they consist of 'boundary adjustments' with 'just' one Council being 'abolished' - no mention here of 'amalgamation'. although that is the clear outcome.

For example, the Government proposal for Perth/Vincent should be:
- boundary adjustment to Perth (UWA, QEII and surrounds; Burswood);
- boundary adjustment to Vincent (loss of riverside Banks area); and
- amalgamation of the adjusted Perth and Vincent Councils.

This correct description would trigger the Dadour poll provision - and that is what scares Barnett and Simpson.