Pure Sophistry

The latest statement from Homer about why 'boundary adjustment' or 'amalgamation' almost beggars belief.

Whilst it is true that the Minister can only accept or reject the recommendations of the Local Government Advisory Board - although that doesn't apparently prevent his rejecting and then going ahead with something more to his liking, as with the proposed City of Perth Act - the LGAB can and should look at things rather more closely.

The issue should be judged, not on what the proponent describes it as but on what the actual effect is.

If I decide to bludgeon a neighbour to death without provocation, it matters not that I might describe it as an action to give me 'lebensraum' (boundary adjustment).

No! The LGAB should have looked at each proposal and described it in its recommendation as amalgamation if that was the effective outcome. Instead, the LGAB seems to have fallen for the fallacious argument that one Council is better placed to manage the transition than the other - when the resources of both Councils will be required and will be available with either approach.

So the LGAB, as well as the Minister, is guilt of engaging in sophistry to the detriment of the rights of electors and the principles of democracy.

Even worse, where there are two very similar proposals (eg Belmont-Kalamunda; Swan-Mundaring), the LGAB has recommended the one that doesn't give electors the opportunity for a vote - despite the Local Government Act, under which the LGAB operates, having as one of its stated objectives "greater community participation in the decisions and affairs of local governments". Given this, surely the LGAB should have recommended the proposal that gave electors the opportunity of a vote.

Alternatively, it could have amended the proposal, where appropriate, to ensure that opportunity was provided.

Given the Minister's timelines and process, 'boundary adjustment' totally disenfranchises the electors of the abolished local government for the initial period of the new local governments (July-October 2015) and puts sitting councillors of the 'continuing' local government in an unfairly advantageous position when it comes to the October 2015 elections - especially where no wards are proposed.