On the basis of current stated positions, Labor, the Nationals and the Greens - and possibly a few Liberals - will oppose the Bill in the Legislative Council. Barnett does not have the numbers in Parliament.
Even before that, it remains to be seen if he has the numbers in his own Party room, where he was previously rolled on his attempt to remove the Dadour poll provision that so emphatically scuppered his whole so-called reform of local government.
If I were a ratepayer of the City of Perth (and fortunately that possibility, for so long a concern to many of us, is no longer a real one - at least until some politician forgets the lessons of the Barnett/Simpson debacle), I would be wanting assurances that the proposed restructure and additional jobs (and costs) were able to be adjusted and continue to be appropriate in the event that the City of Perth retains its current boundaries under the Local Government Act.
And the reported logic is more than a little bemusing, too. On the one hand: "We've streamlined the organisation so that there is a thinning of the organisation with a greater strengthening in job roles" - sounds like telling people they have to work harder. On the other hand, 60-80 new jobs are 'required' - and I doubt that Nedlands/Subiaco devote anything like that many staff to UWA, QEII, Hollywood Hospital and the immediate residential areas.
So - what new functions is the City of Perth to be granted under the proposed City of Perth Act? Or is this just another illustration of the fallacy of economies of scale so often spruiked by Barnet and Simpson when all the evidence pointed the other way.
The Council dealt with this matter behind closed doors - and the media release gives no information on this. I guess we'll just have to wait and see - once again, the community is being given the mushroom treatment.
Yep and what’s more, the wheels fell off the cart long ago.
ReplyDelete