IT’S difficult to separate spin from fact at the City of Canning these days.
At a recent meeting with residents, Local Government Minister Tony Simpson, was asked why Canning couldn’t remain as it was. He replied no proposal had been received to that effect.
The ‘submission’ to the Local Government Advisory Board that was Fight for Canning is not seen to have the same weight.
If four other councils managed to have new proposals accepted by the board recently, why not Canning?
While on the subject of taking out insurance to protect the community, why won’t Commissioner Reynolds join the multiple-council Supreme Court action designed to protect those councils’ boundaries?
Why is he reframing the implications of the inquiry into Canning, claiming it’s important to remember it didn’t support Canning’s abolishment when that was not its role?
In fact the Commissioner seems unwilling to address what inquirer, Dr Christopher Kendall, did express doubts about, including whether the purported changes at the City would work in a normal council environment, and whether the present configuration of council and the administration could work together.
Millions of dollars of investigations returned neither a damning indictment of council nor a ringing endorsement of the administration.
I can’t help but think that while a Commissioner remains at Canning, we will not be able to exert much influence on the councils that may claim us eventually.
DIANA RYAN, Bentley