Subiaco Shafted

West Australian, 14th January 2015

Bruce Mackintosh rightly draws attention to Subiaco's being denied access to a poll, even though the Cambridge-Subiaco proposal is essentially the same as the South Perth - Victoria Park one which does trigger a poll.

Well, Bruce, that's the duplicity of Simpson and Barnett for you.

Makes it all the more important that those who do have the opportunity do express their disgust at the way unwanted and unnecessary changes are being foisted on them - in South Perth, Victoria Park, Cockburn, Kwinana and East Fremantle.

The other letters, responding to letters from Cecilia Brooke and Peter Howat are breathtaking in their naivety.

M E Andrijich simply asserts that efficiency of South Perth can be taken into the larger amalgamated city, ignoring the cost and disruption the change will inevitably cause to those existing efficient processes. In any case, history and evidence from other forced amalgamations do not support the argument.

Ross MacDonald simply asserts that the amalgamated Council could function from multiple sites especially with the use of electronic linkages. He has obviously not studied the history of the 'paperless office' and 'virtual meetings'. Information and communications technology has simply led to more exchanges of information between more people - most of which are printed off multiple times.

Similarly, it was once expected that the telephone would reduce the need for face to face meetings - but one of its main effects was to make arranging face to face meetings easier - so we had more rather than fewer meetings. Outlook and similar electronic diary software simply makes it easier to arrange meetings rather than substituting for face to face meetings - and many such meetings in his scenario would involve travel between two or more locations.

And the experience of the WA Government in trying to establish a 'shared services' regime in the public service is hardly cause for optimism, either.