Kwinana Comes to Life

It can be difficult for the Mayor of a local government to say what she really thinks of what is happening, when doing so is likely to prejudice the Premier even further against her. So, all praise to Carol Adams, Mayor of Kwinana for this.

Coincidence - or a Threat?

Is it pure coincidence that the Local Government Advisory Board is due to report on Col's amalgamation proposals just before the local government elections that are due on 19th October 2013?

The answer to that question may lie  (and I use the word advisedly) in comments made by Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, in a 'Local Government Update' on 5th August. He said:

"There will be a strong focus on achieving a seamless service delivery during the changeover to the planned local governments in 2015. 

During the transition stage, local governments will continue to operate with their Chief Executive Officers in place to run the existing administrations until the new entities are created.

Commissioners will be appointed from the first day of the new entities and will continue in the role until the next elections in October 2015, about three-and-a-half months.

The Minister for Local Government can also appoint commissioners at an earlier stage if the reform process is unsatisfactory…"

In other words, if local Councils, or even their communities, continue to argue or protest we'll put Commissioners who will bow to the Government's will in their place.

Just ask residents of the City of Canning how well that is currently working for them!

Seems odd, also, to put Commissioners in for such a short period - except, of course, that they would be able to make sure that the new local governments were set up in exactly the compliant way that the emperor wants.

I wouldn't mind betting that we'll see commissioners (or should that be Commissars?) from October 2013 for all metropolitan local governments except those fortunate few that are unaffected by the changes or those that have already rolled over.

He Doesn't Care

That's what Colin Barnett said to Paul Murray on 6PR on Wednesday 14th August.

To be fair, he said that in the context of the actual boundaries between local governments. He is firm, though, he said on reducing the number of metropolitan local governments by half.

What most of us see though, Mr Premier, is a government that truly doesn't care about the community; a government for which the ends justify the means - a phrase coined (in Italian) by Niccolo Machiavelli in The Prince and infamously co-opted as a political dictum by Joseph Stalin.

The end does not justify the means, Mr Premier, because the long-term outcome of ignoring principles in order to buy short-term results is a failure of your own goals. When you have a principle, like 'do not steal', it cannot be overridden because you have some end in mind that you think will benefit several other people who 'deserve it more'.

When you have a principle like democracy, Mr Premier, it cannot be overridden because you think the changes you want to happen will be better for those affected. 

The basic principle of democracy, Mr Premier, is that people have a right to a say in how government affects their lives. 

In March 2013, Mr Premier, people voted for your government with the clear assurance from you that there would be no forced amalgamations of local governments. 

That is not to say there should be no amalgamations, but there was a statutory process for investigating and determining such proposals, including the right of the people affected to reject them - with criteria (majority of those voting, subject to 50% poll turnout) that in practice are quite difficult to achieve unless people feel really strongly about the issue - typical local government election turnout, even with postal voting, is around 30%.

This process, Mr Premier, you have said you intend to subvert by removing the provision from the Local Government Act.

Are you really so unsure of yourself and your proposals, Mr Premier, that you don't think you can get the support of 30% of the people affected (for a high 60% turnout)?

Pyrrhic Victory

Thanks to CanningAccountability for this.

The Premier has opened the door to the City of Perth swallowing up the whole of the City of Vincent, but there's a catch.

The catch is that the two local governments have to agree. The City of Perth doesn't really want the residential areas of Vincent, preferring to cherry-pick the valuable real estate of the southern part. The City of Perth knows that Vincent Council is desperate not to be split with the northern part going to the City of Stirling.

No prizes for identifying who holds the whip hand in any negotiations. If the City of Vincent disappears in this scenario, it will be on terms dictated by the City of Perth.

No doubt Vincent Council will trumpet this as a victory - but at what a cost.

Vincent will be no more.

Vincent will become the unwanted residential rump of the City of Perth, to be hidden away and neglected as it was prior to 1994.

And if Perth and Vincent can't agree, Colin Barnett can claim that his original proposal has been justified.

How to get your way and blame everyone else.

Good one, Col!

We All Have The Right To Be Heard - so, in the words of John Hyde, former Mayor of Vincent, "BE LOUD AND BE PROUD"

The Local Government Act, 1995, doesn't restrict the right to make submissions to the Local Government Advisory Board on proposed boundary changes to local governments alone. Every affected individual (and even, technically, an individual who is not affected) has the right to make a submission on any boundary change proposal that is the subject of a formal inquiry by the LGAB.
Equally important, the Board is required to consider all submissions and to have regard to:
- community of interests
- physical and topographical features
- demographic trends
- economic factors
- the history of the area
- transport and communication
- matters affecting the viability of local governments
- the effective delivery of local government services.
So the opportunity is there to make the Local Government Advisory Board fully (and painfully) aware of the strength of feeling about these ill-considered proposals. And the eight points above provide a simple template for expressing your views. I can see people having a field day in respect of community of interest (or, rather, lack thereof) for many of the proposed changes, such as splitting the Beaufort Street/Mt Lawley centre between three local governments.
Just be sure to state your name and address and the proposal on which you are commenting. Say whether you support the proposal or not (bureaucrats love to be able to simply add up Yeas and Nays) and then go on to make your comments. Feel free to attach any documents in support of your comments.
If you would like a pro forma to help you make your submission, email me at ian_ker2@hotmail.com and I will email a WORD document for you to complete in your own words.
You can email your submission to advisory.board@dlg.wa.gov.au, mail to the Local Government Advisory Board, GPO Box R1250, Perth, WA 6844 or deliver in person at Department of Local Government and Communities, Gordon Stephenson House, 140 William Street, Perth, WA 6000. Public access to Gordon Stephenson House is from the Murray Street Mall near the Perth Underground station, but you'll have to navigate around hoardings and building works.

More Sloppy Policy

Colin Barnett has announced a u-turn on the amount people with solar panels will get for electricity they put into the grid (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/18456332/cabinet-reverses-solar-tariff-decision). The cut, from 40 cents/unit to 20 cents/unit, will not now go ahead - because of all the backlash from the community and from members of his own party.

All this just hours after the Treasurer, Troy Buswell, was defending the cuts on the grounds of the broader public interest. It seems this government can't even get its act together when they get it right (in the end).

Now, just what sort of reaction did Barnett think he was going to get to a proposal that not only cut the amount people received in half but was also almost certainly illegal (a letter from Synergy sent in 2011 stated that customers would receive the 40 cents for the full term of their 10-year contract).  Just what part of 'legally-binding contract' does his emperorness not understand?

Out of the three possible reasons for changing his mind (community outrage, pressure from government MPs or illegality), my money is on the second as being the key one.

So perhaps there is still hope for getting a better outcome for local government and local communities without resorting to forced amalgamations. Lobby Liberal/National Members of Parliament and if enough of them see some semblance of sense perhaps CB will make (yet another) u-turn.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose - Again

Quintus Cicero (who apparently possessed a penchant for outrageous acts of cruelty) is reputed to have penned advice for his brother, Marcus Tullius Cicero, on how to get elected as Consul of Rome over 2000 years ago - pre-dating the more notorious 'The Prince' by Nicolo Machiavelli by over 1500 years. Eureka Street has drawn attention to this in the context of the current Federal election, but (at least) one aspect is clearly demonstrated by the WA State Election in 2013.

Quintus Cicero wrote that anyone seeking election should:
Promise everything to everyone. If problems arise after the election it is easier to deal with them if you are in power.

Sound familiar? In the 2013 election campaign, Colin Barnett promised 'no forced amalgamations of local government', most specifically to his western suburbs constituents. Just a few months later he is in the process of forcing such amalgamations across the metropolitan area and his constituents are faced with the prospect of a single mega-council.

I wonder (rhetorically) what the result of the election would have been if he had been honest before the election.

Methinks, however, that Emperor Barnett has also been influenced by Machiavelli, who noted that a prince is praised for keeping his word but is also praised for the illusion of being reliable in keeping his word. 

A prince, therefore, should only keep his word when it suits his purposes, but do his utmost to maintain the illusion that he does keep his word and that he is reliable in that regard.

Emperor Col seems to have taken the first part of that to heart, most notoriously (but not solely - http://brokenpromises.org.au) in forced local government amalgamations, but failed to grasp the latter. 


I suppose we should be thankful for small mercies. At least we can see his lies for what they are.

Doomed to Repeat History?

Perth Voice, 17th August 2013, p7

How Not To Understand A Community

In the debate on Mark McGowan's Motion on a Matter of Public Interest, the Minister for Local Government, Tony Simpson (I'm sure there must be lots of apposite Simpsons quotes to come for this whole charade) made some very illuminating comments.

He said: "I took the opportunity to drive up and down Beaufort Street". Is that the sum total of Mr Simpson's knowledge of the Mt Lawley area for which he proposes major upheavals? He might, at least, have walked for a while, perhaps talked to a few people, taken the time to hear how people feel about their community.

He also said: "The Mayor of Belmont was at the breakfast today and raised one good point with me. He said that the City of Belmont provides some fantastic services to its community with security patrols and so forth. He asked, “Am I expected to do the same for Pickering Brook up in Kalamunda?” I said, “Well, no. At the end of the day the ratepayers are entitled to the same service they get today but I am sure with the two coming together we can deliver better services. But I know for a fact, because I represent Pickering Brook, that they do not want the services of the City of Belmont because they live in a rural atmosphere and that’s what they like living there for."

This raises key questions about community of interest.

And then there is pure sloppiness. Mr Simpson said: "I thought that the whole of the airport site had been put into the City of Belmont to make sure there was clearly one local government for the City of Belmont and the airport, but interestingly they [people at the Property Council breakfast] identified that a corner of the industrial area has been missed out."

This is inexcusable sloppiness in the development of public policy that that will have major effects on the lives and businesses of the people of Perth for decades to come.

The Minister should not rely on the Local Government Advisory Board to rectify the deficiencies in his proposals. Indeed, there are limits on the extent to which the Board can make a recommendation that differs from that into which it was asked to inquire (see para 6, below). A recommendation for a proposal that is 'significantly different' from the one into which the Board was asked to inquire triggers a whole new process, requiring:

(a) notice to affected local governments, affected electors and the other electors of districts directly affected by the recommendation 

(b) adequate opportunity for submissions to be made about the intended order; and

(c) consideration of those submissions by the LGAB.

If a local government was this sloppy, the Minister would, no doubt, be jumping up and down and decrying its inefficiency. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander, Minister.

Extract from Hansard, 6th August 2013

Mr A.J. SIMPSON: It is all about making sure we develop a vibrant city and making sure we get it right. I must admit that there will always be some anomalies in the system. As I said at question time today, I took the opportunity to drive up and down Beaufort Street, and that was one of the clear things that came back to me at the Beaufort Street festival. But just keep in mind, members, that the current boundary between the City of Vincent and the City of Perth is Newcastle Street. The Northbridge festival seems to operate all right and does not seem to have a problem with the boundary on Newcastle Street. As we look at where the boundaries lie, I must agree that there are some anomalies in the system. Perhaps the Beaufort Street boundary will not work and we may have to move it up a bit. However, the proposals for the City of Stirling, the City of Bayswater and the City of Perth will be put to the Local Government Advisory Board to identify any anomaly that needs to be looked at. This morning at the Property Council breakfast people from Perth Airport identified an anomaly. I thought that the whole of the airport site had been put into the City of Belmont to make sure there was clearly one local government for the City of Belmont and the airport, but interestingly they identified that a corner of the industrial area has been missed out. The most important thing again is that the Gateway WA project and the airport development will all be within one local government all the way through to Forrestfield and High Wycombe and up into the rural aspect of Kalamunda. The Mayor of Belmont was at the breakfast today and raised one good point with me. He said that the City of Belmont provides some fantastic services to its community with security patrols and so forth. He asked, “Am I expected to do the same for Pickering Brook up in Kalamunda?” I said, “Well, no. At the end of the day the ratepayers are entitled to the same service they get today but I am sure with the two coming together we can deliver better services. But I know for a fact, because I represent Pickering Brook, that they do not want the services of the City of Belmont because they live in a rural atmosphere and that’s what they like living there for. They’re not in that process.”

Extract from Schedule 2.1 to the Local Government Act 1995.

6.         Recommendation by Advisory Board

               (1)         After formally inquiring into a proposal, the Advisory Board, in a written report to the Minister, is to recommend* — 

                           (a)         that the Minister reject the proposal; or

                           (b)         that an order be made in accordance with the proposal; or

                           (c)         if it thinks fit after complying with subclause (2), the making of some other order that may be made under section 2.1.

               * Absolute majority required.

               (2)         The Advisory Board is not to recommend to the Minister the making of an order that is significantly different from the proposal into which it formally inquired unless the Board has — 

                           (a)         given* notice to affected local governments, affected electors and the other electors of districts directly affected by the recommendation of its intention to do so; and

                           (b)         afforded adequate opportunity for submissions to be made about the intended order; and

                           (c)            considered any submissions made.

* Absolute majority required.

Broken Promises and Dishonesty

Somehow missing from media coverage (at least, any that I saw) was Tuesday's debate on a "Matter of Public Interest" in which Mark McGowan moved:
"That this house condemns the Premier for his numerous broken promises and dishonesty in misleading the people of Western Australia before the election in relation to the issue of forced council amalgamations." 

Tedious though parliamentary debates often are, this one is well worth reading (http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Hansard/hansard.nsf/0/c20cc26db0fd91fa48257bbf0069d275/$FILE/A39%20S1%2020130806%20p15e-27a.pdf) as it highlights the extent to which the Premier engages in linguistic gymnastics to obscure the undeniable fact that he is forcing his version of amalgamations on local governments and their communities. He continually reverts to the argument that 30 councils is too many for the metropolitan area while ignoring the non-sensical outcomes of his simplistic solutions.

Reducing the number of local governments in the metropolitan area might be desirable, but let those who live there have a say and you would end up with boundaries that had some semblance of community of interest about them.

Just for the record, here are the recorded votes - along party lines as one would expect. It will be interesting to see whether any LibNats are willing to stand up to Bully Barnett in later votes on substantial issues - but I'm not holding my breath.

Ayes (17 - all Labor) 

Ms L.L. Baker       Mr M. McGowan      Ms M.M. Quirk      Mr B.S. Wyatt 

Mr R.H. Cook       Ms S.F. McGurk       Mrs M.H. Roberts   Mr D.A. Templeman (Teller) 

Ms J.M. Freeman   Mr M.P. Murray       Ms R. Saffioti 

Mr D.J. Kelly        Mr P. Papalia            Mr C.J. Tallentire 

Mr F.M. Logan     Mr J.R. Quigley        Mr P.B. Watson 

Noes (34 - all Liberal/National) 

Mr P. Abetz          Ms M.J. Davies         Mr C.D. Hatton          Mr D.C. Nalder 

Mr F.A. Alban      Mr J.H.D. Day          Mr A.P. Jacob            Mr J. Norberger 

Mr C.J. Barnett     Ms W.M. Duncan      Dr G.G. Jacobs          Mr D.T. Redman 

Mr I.C. Blayney    Ms E. Evangel           Mr S.K. L’Estrange   Mr A.J. Simpson 

Mr I.M. Britza       Mr J.M. Francis         Mr R.S. Love             Mr M.H. Taylor 

Mr T.R. Buswell   Mrs G.J. Godfrey      Mr W.R. Marmion     Mr T.K. Waldron 

Mr G.M. Castrilli   Mr B.J. Grylls           Mr P.T. Miles            Mr J.E. McGrath (Teller) 

Mr V.A. Catania    Dr K.D. Hames         Ms A.R. Mitchell 

Mr M.J. Cowper    Mrs L.M. Harvey      Mr N.W. Morton

Pairs (balanced absence from the House for approved reasons)

Ms J. Farrer (ALP)                                Dr M.D. Nahan (Liberal)

Mr W.J. Johnston (ALP)                       Mr R.F. Johnson  (Liberal)

Dr A.D. Buti (ALP)                              Mr A. Krsticevic  (Liberal)

Not recorded (presumably absent)

Mr P C Tinley (ALP)

Thanks…but no thanks

In a Nutshell, from Freo's View (click for link)

W.A. Premier Colin Barnett says in five years time we will all thank him for the local council amalgamations and ask ourselves what all the fuss was about, but the outcry is not about not wanting council mergers, it is about the fact that the Premier wants to force them when he said before the election he wouldn’t. It is also about getting better boundaries for the council mergers, not the lazy options the state government proposes.

Secret Minutes from the Emperor's Bunker

The document below, which throws an interesting, if unsurprising, light on the decision-making of the WA Government, has come into the possession of this blogger. I can't vouch for its authenticity (but it seems believable in the light of recent events) and unfortunately only the first page could be retrieved - so we might never know what was resolved under the heading of 'Abolishing the Opposition', but extrapolation from the local government item is strongly suggestive.

Anyway, for what it is worth (perhaps no more than a good laugh - and if you didn't laugh at what the Emperor does you'd be crying non-stop), here is the document (click on it to make larger).

Waiting for an Accessible Taxi

For decades, people with disabilities have had to put up with a second-class taxi service with only a proportion of taxis being wheelchair-accessible. This has been justified on the basis that there was no generally-acceptable taxi vehicle that was wheelchair accessible.

The quid pro quo was that the taxi industry undertook to provide comparable response times for phone bookings, but this has been more a hope than an expectation - and did not help people with disabilities get a taxi at a rank or hailing on the street. In recent times, the WA Taxi Council has been trying to weasel out of even this concession by seeking an exemption from the requirement from the Australian Human Rights Commission, which oversees the Standards.

So it was with disbelief, tinged with sadness, that I saw the Department of Transport advertising in The West Australian (Saturday 3rd August, p44) for manufacturer expressions of interest for a 'purpose-built taxi trial' that did not mention accessibility at all.

This is a once-only opportunity to move towards a totally accessible taxi fleet - as, for example, New York is doing.

It is no longer the case that there is no generally-acceptable taxi vehicle that is wheelchair accessible. New York can do it and there are numerous vehicles in most other developed countries that are used as accessible taxis - not just the basic van-based vehicles we see in Perth.

I call upon the Department of Transport to withdraw its current call for expressions of interest for a purpose-built taxi trial and to replace it with one that calls for the vehicles to be wheelchair-accessible.

When Consolidation and Amalgamation really mean Fragmentation and Confusion

Despite all the rhetoric from the emperor about effectiveness, efficiency, co-ordination and simplification in the current shenanigans about forced local government amalgamations, there is at least one place where the situation has been made much more complex.

The Beaufort Street/Mt Lawley centre is a thriving commercial and cafe strip, but has always had difficulties because it was split between two Councils with rather different planning and community-development philosophies relating to town centres.

Emperor Barnett now proposes to split this centre between three local governments.

To add to the complication, Stirling was previously responsible for the area north of Walcott Street, but now takes over one side of the area of Beaufort Street that was previously the domain of the City of Vincent. The City of Perth takes over the other part of the previous City of Vincent responsibility. And Bayswater/Bassendean takes over the area previously the responsibility of the City of Stirling.

So, EVERYONE has to adjust to the oversight of a different local government from the one they deal with now. How is that supposed to bring about improvement?

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

When the Town of Vincent was hived off from the City of Perth by the then Liberal Premier, Richard Court, in 1994, the southern boundary was set at Newcastle Street, partly to ensure that the potentially troublesome Vincent community would have no say in, or ability to make waves about, the Northbridge Tunnel.

Fast forward to 2013 and look at the maps for the new boundary between the City of Perth and the proposed Victoria Park/South Perth local government.

The most immediately-obvious thought is to ask why Belmont Racecourse didn't go with the rest of the Burswood Pensinsula rather than being left as an outlier for South Park, with all the difficulties of servicing such an area. And the initially-cynical response is that the racecourse doesn't generate the income for local government that the Casino does - as if the City of Perth needed more than it already generates, but that's a separate issue.

But then, perhaps the Burswood boundary issue is not just about the money. Look closely and you see that the new boundaries place Emperor Barnett's new colosseum firmly within the new City of Perth - preventing the potentially troublesome South Park community having any say in, or ability to make waves about, the Stadium.

A distinct feeling of deja vu, here.

Pre-empting the Parliament

Colin Barnett is acting as though the removal of the current provisions of the Local Government Act that give residents the right to demand a poll on proposed amalgamations were a fait accompli. In fact, this move has to be approved by both houses of the WA Parliament and this has not yet happened.

It might well be the case that he has the numbers in both Houses of Parliament, but the debate at least needs to be had in the Parliament so that those of us in the great unwashed can clearly see the arrogance and hypocrisy of this Government.

It seems, for example, that the emperor only has the numbers in the Upper House if country councils are somehow exempted from the type of amalgamations to be forced on the metropolitan area. How likely is this, however, when Barnett is quoted as saying: "…local governments had been given the chance to merge voluntarily, but had chosen instead to persist with a situation in which some councils govern as few as 500 people" (http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/perths-local-councils-to-be-slashed-in-half-20130730-2qwht.html).

There are no metropolitan local governments with 'as few as 500 people', so he is clearly flagging forced amalgamations for country local governments as well.

So how will Brendan Grylls justify supporting forced amalgamations to his constituents?

I know, from personal experience of living in country WA and from talking with elected members from country councils when I was a councillor for the then Town of Vincent, that there are many good reasons why the configuration of country local governments should be different from metropolitan ones - even beyond the obvious ones of physical size and population density.

Colin Barnett appears to have a much more simplistic approach that ignores the realities of life.

I call on Brendan Grylls not to support a double-standard for local government. I call on him to reject forced amalgamations of local governments, whether they be metropolitan or country and the best way of doing this is by ensuring that residents continue to have the right to call a poll on any proposed amalgamations.

Even in the metropolitan area, Eleni Evangel, the recently-elected MLA for Perth, has come out in support of retaining the City of Vincent in its current form (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/18263711/fury-at-barnett-over-poll-pledge) - a much stronger position, ironically, than that of the Vincent Council, which seems to have rolled over and accepted the inevitability of its demise by supporting reincorporation into the City of Perth.

I wish Eleni Evangel all the best in this campaign. As a new Member of Parliament, she will be subjected to all sorts of pressure to conform to the emperor's wishes. I sincerely hope she is able to resist this pressure and reflect what I believe are the views of most of her constituents who live in the City of Vincent.

Promises, Promises

First we had John Howard making a distinction between 'core' and 'non-core' promises.

Then we had Tony Abbott telling us that we could only be sure he was telling us the truth if he was reading from a script. Go have a look at YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc5ljcri6Nk&noredirect=1) if you want to see Tony Abbott taken apart by Kerry O'Brien on this.

Now we have Colin Barnett telling us that promises don't matter because "I don't think people study the promises" (see below para 6). Of course this begs the question: if people don't study the promises, why make them in the first place?

Well, I've got news for Mr Barnett - it really doesn't matter what he thinks, the fact is that many of us do study the promises before we vote in an election. And we have the right to believe that we are not being lied to when such promises are made.

This is by no means the first broken promise from the 2013 WA Election (http://brokenpromises.org.au) - and that's only in the first four months.

And a word of praise for Eleni Evangel, MLA for Perth, who has publicly broken ranks with the Premier, at least on the subject of the City of Vincent (see para 3 and the last two paras, above). She obviously knows her electorate well enough to recognise the good things Vincent does and the support it has in the community.

Emperor Barnett turns Dictator - and lapdog Simpson rolls over

Those who have been in Outer Mongolia for the past few days might not be aware that the WA Government has announced its intention to force amalgamations of and some other boundary changes to metropolitan local governments. If you want a comprehensive catch-up, go to http://canningaccountability.com.

Of course, the Premier denies that these are 'forced amalgamations', but in the same breath said that: "…there will be no room for negotiation, beyond some minor tweaking of the proposed borders". (http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/perths-local-councils-to-be-slashed-in-half-20130730-2qwht.html) 

Incidentally, I think he means 'boundaries' - borders are generally between sovereign entities. Or is he planning to grant self-government to these new larger local governments? 

And as for the Minister for Local Government - Sir Humphrey (Appleby) of ‘Yes, Minister’ fame would be immensely proud of a Minister who could, with a straight face, say he was going to change “the poll provisions in the Local Government Act to make them more democratic so more of the population would have a say on any proposed amalgamations”  by removing the only provision that actually allows the people affected to have a say in the process.

This is precisely what Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson, has done!

On 4th June, 2013, he "flagged changes to the poll provisions in the Local Government Act to make them more democratic so that more of the population would have a say on any proposed amalgamations" (Metropolitan Local Government Reform Update, Issue 2 - http://metroreform.dlg.wa.gov.au/Content/Updates/View.aspx?ItemID=68466E644D53563158684D3D)

On 30th July, 2013, the Minister was party to an announcement by the Premier that: "The government will also override the existing 'Dadour Bill', which currently gives the public the power to veto any council mergers or boundary changes via a referendum." (http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/perths-local-councils-to-be-slashed-in-half-20130730-2qwht.html) 

Oh well - probably tilting at windmills again - but there are a lot of people who don't like what is being foisted on them. If enough of us get together, especially those who live in marginal electorates, perhaps we can actually change something. 

Oh! I forgot. Didn't Colin Barnett say something about 2013 being his last election - so he doesn't really give a toss about the next election - but I would have thought his party colleagues might.

Anyway, here's today's tilt - published on the letters page of the West Australian. [Click on image to enlarge.]