A Ferndale resident is unhappy over City of Canning Local Government reform

I AM very concerned regarding the underhanded and dishonest way the Government is going about the redistribution of council boundaries.

I am have been in the City of Canning for a great number of years. I have attended the meetings the City arranged to inform us of the progress of the boundary changes and possible ramifications and to have an opportunity to put our request and views forward via petitions that apparently have been ignored.

The Government stated that 100,000 residents in a locality was the ideal number to have an efficiently run council. This is close to what the City of Canning has.

Up to February 24 this year, 3657 signatures were sent stating why the residents wanted Canning to stay as it was. In addition, 536 signatures were sent direct to the advisory board.

On March 6, more than 1000 people attended a meeting at the City of Canning and were told of the progress being made. Two subsequent meetings resulted in petitions signed and emails sent stating why residents wanted Canning to remain as it was.

Somehow, a plan B came into the picture, which very few if any voted for or wanted.

After the Government sacked Linton Reynolds and it employed three other commissioners to take his place, we had nobody to stand up for our democratic rights.

It now appears the Government will shift the boundaries to incorporate us with the City of Gosnells. This gives one large council way in excess of the ideal 100,000 residents that was the original criteria.

What sort of democracy is this when the residents’ wishes, backed up by the thousands of petition signatures, are ignored?

What twist of logic is that when the Government merges councils the ratepayers can vote for or against the decision, yet if a council has its boundaries changed to be absorbed into another council then the ratepayers can’t have a say?