The criteria which councils are required to meet is so high that it is not realistic and most councils, including very efficient councils, wlll have difficulty in meeting these conditions. 

I understand that the government is offering large amounts of money to councils which agree to amalgamate and very little to those who do not wish to.

This really amounts to bribery or blackmail and makes a mockery of the solemn promises, particularly pre-election, that there would be no forced amalgamations. 

The government is using back door methods, making life so difficult for councils that many  of them will be forced to amalgamate and the short time frame makes it even more difficult. 

I believe that shire councils, mayors and managers should unite and really give the local government minister a hard time until he modifies the strict conditions which councils are required to meet.

To me, it seems that all shire councils are judged to be guilty unless they prove their innocence. 

I understand that federal government grants to shire councils are calculated on a population basis, meaning the councils with the higher population get the most money.

In my view, the smaller councils with lower population should get a bigger share because of less revenue from rates compared to the larger population areas.

The length of roads, number of bridges, sporting fields, parks, etc. should be the yardstick to calculate grant money and population should be a small part of the equation. 

If these very large council areas are created, it will mean that council staff will have to travel long distances to work, meaning they will be spending more time on the road and less time on the job. 

Amalgamations have failed in Victoria and Queensland and I believe will suffer the same fate in NSW.

Local government will no longer be local. 

If the state government gets its way and creates very large “local” government areas (which will become expensive and inefficient bureaucracies) and continues to sell off or privatise the remaining assets they have, then the question will be asked – why do we need a state government?

I AM happy Bruce Harper (“Fast facts on speeding”, Letters, Daily Advertiser) agrees that stopping distance makes a difference when accidents occur.

I agree with Bruce: some people are not speeding intentionally.

People with good driving records can have their fine waived.

I agree to disagree with Bruce’s belief that those who drive 10kmh over the limit now will not speed if limits are higher.

Bruce has been elaborate in deciding what I assume, and is incorrect.

The road toll has plummeted with many safety measures in place since the time when drove home over the limit and without a seatbelt.

Times change, people evolve.

I agree, Bruce, speed is not the only factor.

Unpredictable circumstances, road conditions and lapses in concentration are all good reasons to lessen impact injuries by lowering speeds.

We are not always as alert as we think. We can’t count the number of people who haven’t been hit, thank God. I’m curious Bruce, why rush if you’re not trying to save time?