Freo's View

NEW GROUP FIGHTS DADOUR MINI-TREASON ACT

Posted in fremantle by freoview on October 8, 2013

A new Perth community group, the DADOUR Group, is fighting the planned removal by State Government of the Dadour Act from the Local Government act. The Dadour act gives communities the right to vote on and veto local council amalgamations. The Western Australian government is planning to force council mergers and reduce the number of them to only 14, which has seen an angry reaction from many councils.

Dadour Group convenor Malcolm Mummery told 6PR radio this morning that the group sees the removal of the act as mini-treason.

In my opinion it is unacceptable that the government wants to erode our liberties. Local government reform and changes to the local government act need to be handled with extreme sensitivity, and should not be political grandstanding or government bullying!

If we don’t fight for our rights now we might not have the right to fight against other changes to our democratic rights in the future.

Roel Loopers

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Julie Matheson said, on October 11, 2013 at 3:36 pm

    See this link for an extract of the Dadour Amendment: http://localgovtsubiaco.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/dadour-poll-provisions/

    Like

  2. Julie Matheson said, on October 11, 2013 at 3:35 pm

    Reblogged this on Local Govt. and Subiaco and commented:
    The Dadour Group are asking all metropolitan residents and ratepayers to write to all State Govt politician seeking their commitment and support of the Dadour Amendment in its entirety. No change, No dilution and No suspension. Please write to them now.

    Like

  3. dianajr161 said, on October 9, 2013 at 10:13 am

    Thanks for the heads up about 6PR, Roel.

    Has anyone actually seen or got the low-down on what the actual amendment to Dadour is? The changes proposed? Memory fails me a bit here, but I think the State was going to alter it, not wipe it?

    Weren’t they going to make sure that it couldn’t be just a small number of people, or just one council’s population (in a merge of two or more) that could veto a merger?

    Maybe Barnett went too far in his amendment of the amendment and that’s why its been withdrawn, still, I would like to see the amendment. A lot has focussed on prima facie assumptions that it “wipes away our rights”, but if it stops a small group holding sway, might be worth a look at updating?

    Like


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: