The Shire of Kent has received a letter from the Local Government Minister thanking us for our consideration of reform options.
The letter states that after considering our decision not to 'embrace the opportunity for voluntary reform', he has determined the 'best way forward is through the creation of Regional Transition or Regional Collaborative Groups.'
The idea is that these groups will then provide the basis for becoming amalgamated by 2013. The Minister states that there will be no 'opt out' clause, so if you decide that the group you have joined is not in your best interests as a shire, there's no opportunity to look at other options!
The Shire of Kent have formed a Voluntary Regional Group of Councils with the Shires of Dumbleyung and Lake Grace. The Minister does not appear to be recognising a VROC as a regional collaborative group. If it isn't a regional collaborative group, then what is?
Many Shires in the Wheatbelt have received the same letter. Shires are planning to band together to protest against the Minister's actions. The Minister has claimed that 54 local governments had advised in their submissions that they were amenable to amalgamations. Yet, local governments, such as ours, that did not indicate any such thing have been advised that they should form these regional groupings.
Of the 139 local governments in WA, only 9 have agreed to voluntary amalgamation. This appears to indicate a distrust of amalgamation as a reform, and a slap in the face for the Minister and his wonderful ideas.
The Minister is not answering his calls or emails, not even from our local government body, WALGA apparently! Everyone has questions, such as 'who's going to pay?', but the Minister has no answers.
The Shire of Kent moved a recommendation that we write to the Minister and indicate that we are not interested in forming his 'Regional Transition or Collaborative Group'. We will continue with the VROC we have formed.
In speaking with some ratepayers, it appears that a couple of people from the eastern end of our Shire are interested in breaking away and joining Newdegate to become part of the Lake Grace Shire. If there are more than a couple of ratepayers thinking this way, please contact me as I believe we would need to have a Public Meeting to determine whether the original stance of 'no amalgamation' still stands in our Shire.
Council needs to do what it's people want, so if our people have changed their minds, then we must look at our options once more.
Minister's Request
Letter to politicians
Cr Cathy Crosby and I have written a letter to a number of key figures in Parliament and the Opposition outlining our views on the issue of amalgamation.
We haven't used our position as councillors in sending this letter, but as ordinary citizens of the Shire of Kent.
Here is the letter below. This particular one is to the Minister for Local Government, John Castrilli:
This letter was sent to 10 different politicians - Brendon Grylls, Colin Barnett, Troy Buswell, Terry Redman, Terry Waldron, Graham Jacobs, Eric Ripper, Roger Cook and Paul Papalia.
Hopefully, out of one of those, we'll get a response!
We urge you to write your own letters to our politicians and media outlets. The more noise we make, the more chance we have of being heard.
We must be adamant about our position.
We do not wish to amalgamate!
Thank you for your support
Thank you to all those electors who voted for me in the Local Government Elections recently.
I will continue to work with my electorate to develop our Shire to its full potential.
Urgent Action needed for Katanning Saleyards
It's an absolute disgrace that the State Government have prevaricated with the decision to build new saleyards in Katanning.
The Great Southern region must band together and pressure the State Government to utilise the $20million held in reserve since the 2007 sale of the Midland saleyards.
It appears the preference of the government is for privately owned or privately subsidised facility. If this is the case, one wonders what plans they have for the $20 million?
Is it a possibility that the Great Southern Shires can form a group in order to access Royalties for Regions grant money to build the yards? Not talking amalgamation here, but some form of partnership amongst local governments in order to get this project underway.
It is vital that we have a saleyard facility in this region. Katanning is the most sensible since it is central and already has the large and viable WAMMCO meat processing facility.
Max Trenorden disputes benefits of amalgamation
Taken from the ABC website:
Report casts doubt on council amalgamations
Updated October 9, 2009 14:53:00
The MPs travelled to South Australia and Queensland to investigate council amalgamations there.
Mr Trenorden says they found some councils should have remained unaltered.
"There is no clear short term or medium term benefits in any amalgamations that we saw in Queensland or South Australia," he said.
"There are some benefits in the long term but there is a fair bit of pain to get there.
"Each amalgamation is going to cost about two million dollars. The state is not likely to pay that so taxpayers or rate payers are likely to pay that. Queenslands rates went up seven and a half per cent last year and they are projected to go up to that this year."
Waste Management
There's been a lot happening in the Shire of Kent lately to do with waste management.
Council are planning to use Royalties for Regions money to upgrade both the Nyabing and Pingrup rubbish tips.
Pingrup will be first on the agenda, as the tip is unfortunately situated near salt lakes, so needs to be closed down and a transfer station built. Nyabing will follow in a year or two.
The sewerage pits in Nyabing have had to be upgraded following an Environmental Protection Authority order. Since the sewerage pit could overflow into the Nyabing Creek, new pits are needed that will take the town into the future. The total cost of this exercise has been enormous, so council are indeed fortunate that Royalties for Regions money has been accessible for this project. Below is a photo of the works currently underway:
Council have encouraged residents to recycle with the introduction of a kerbside recycling programme in 2007. We are probably the only Shire with a population this size that has undertaken this initiative. Town residents help cover the cost for the facility in their rates, while council picks up the balance in the interest of keeping our rubbish levels down.
Residents of the Shire who are out of town can bring their recycling in and deposit in the bins provided in each townsite. There is no charge for this facility.
If you are uncertain about what can be recycled, ask at the Shire Office. A brochure will be available soon explaining what can and can't be placed in kerbside recycling bins.
I'd like your vote!
I'm standing for election as a councillor for the Shire of Kent once again.
I've been a councillor since 2003 and have seen a number of changes and important decisions made in that time.
Council have been proactive in working with community groups to develop facilities in each town, including the partnership with the Pingrup Progress Association to build accommodation units in Pingrup and with the Nyabing Sports Club to upgrade the Pavilion kitchen and bar in Nyabing.
Council have recently approved an upgrade of the Pingrup netball courts and agreed to in-kind support in partnership with the Pingrup Ground Improvement Committee. The P.G.I.C have worked extremely hard in attaining community support and putting forward a proposal for grant funding for the upgrade of the courts to be multi-purpose playing surfaces.
Council are very supportive of groups that help themselves and will consider any reasonable request for assistance, be it in-kind or financial. I'm always in favour of such partnerships where council work with volunteer community groups to improve the lives of people in our communities.
I've been on council's Building and Land Committee since I first became a councillor and have seen some great projects undertaken in each of our towns.
We've built superb modern three bedroom units and have partnered with the Government Housing Authority to build a comfortable modern home for the school principal in each town.
Another partnership with State Government helped to build neat one bedroom units in each town. Council also undertook the building of a new home for our CEO.
Council have recently acquired residential blocks in Pingrup and are continually working to try to gain residential land in Nyabing. More people are wanting to retire to small safe towns like ours and Council are proactive in encouraging residential as well as commercial development in our towns.
In the time I've been on Council, I've lobbied for our members as well as our community.
I put forward a motion to change the meeting times to later in the afternoon, starting our Forum at 4pm, rather than 2pm. My reasoning was due to my own work commitments as well as to encourage more men and younger people to join council in the future.
The motion was passed and has proved popular with our male councillors, in particular, since they are able to get more work done before the meeting. Unfortunately, it has moved back one hour as we were finding that we weren't finishing our meetings prior to tea time. It proved difficult to come back to a meeting with full concentration, so we now have Forum at 3pm and our regular meeting at 4pm.
I have recently pushed for a higher remuneration for councillors. Since the minister announced his stance on local government reform to encourage voluntary amalgamation processes, I have attended countless meetings and seminars. Councillors have had a great deal of extra reading and community consultation to undertake.
I believe if we are to encourage young people to come on board, we need to be paying a better rate for people to give up their working day to attend various meetings and seminars, not to mention all the work done outside of this time.
We are all taking on more voluntary work in our communities and our time is becoming more constrained.
We have three young people who have nominated for council in the upcoming local government elections, so I'm hoping that these reforms helped to encourage their interest.
I have personally put in many hours assisting our staff with the preparation of Council's reform submission to the Minister for Local Government. This has been a huge undertaking and it is extremely important that we are able to get our message across to the Minister that our Shire does not need to amalgamate in order to achieve many of the outcomes he is looking to accomplish.
I am a passionate and active community member. I'm on a number of committees and have helped to organise many social events, including the recent successful Variety Night held in Nyabing this year. I support our local sporting teams and always help out where needed, be it scoring for netball, yelling for the Hockey girls or producing the Football Budget for each home game.
I also take a great interest in my local school community and have kept abreast of the changes occurring in the way schools are run. I recently lobbied for our school to become a pilot school for the Independent Schools Programme.
This was an enormous opportunity, but, as with a lot of changes, a difficult decision to make, not helped by Teacher's Union scare-mongering at the last minute.
I believe our schools are a vital part of our community and would love to see more partnerships between our Shire and our little primary schools.
The decision to start a blog came about after talking with people in both communities who felt they didn't have access to information about our local government and the decisions that were being made. I hope that my blog has been informative and has kept people abreast of the current happenings in local government and their affect on the Shire of Kent.
I'm hoping that my past performance has proved to my constituents that I have both of our communities' interests at heart and that you will show your approval with a tick next to my name on your voting slip.
Remember, you can vote at the Shire Office any time up until October 16th, or you may vote on Election Day, October 17th.
Authorised by: Cr Megan Tuffley
Written by: Cr Megan Tuffley
4 Richmond St
Nyabing WA 6341
(08) 98291076
Liam Bartlett hits the nail on the head.
In case you missed Liam Bartlett's caustic comments about our illustrious Minister and Premier in the Sunday Times on September 20th, here's a copy:
"If you've ever wondered how your local council could get any worse, let me give you the answer: Being strong-armed by a shambolic state Government that doesn't have a clue as to why it's doing it or what it wants!
Sound confusing? Well, that's the circus being run by Premier Colin Barnett and his one-armed lion tamer John Castrilli. This perambulating pair of pollies, who are trying to squeeze councils into a one-size-fits-all big top, have done no cost-benefit studies, no social or economic impact assessments and, unless they're hiding it, have no real plan.
But that hasn't stopped them firing up the bulldozer and threatening the small end of town with extinction if they don't get their way.
Now I know that on face value, thinking about the future of your local council is enough to turn the soggiest Sao into dust, but consider this: For dozens of towns in this state, the shire is the glue that holds the community together.
And it's not just jobs from direct employment but also the flow-on effect to local businesses and the provision of other government services, not to mention the stability through the tough times of drought or flood, bushfires and other trauma.
There are many very good, decent people who have invested an awful lot of time and goodwill into developing their local district, about to be railroaded into oblivion for the sake of simplistic conservative ideology.
WA has 139 local councils and the Dodgy Brothers (aka Barnett and Castrilli) say there should be fewer than that. Terrific. That's a policy objective that could be scratched out on the back of a beer coaster, but what next? Minister Castrilli began this push in February by insisting he would legislate to force small shires to amalgamate if they didn't volunteer.
Nationals leader Brendon Grylls suggested the removal of Royalty for Regions funding for councils that refuse to merge or join a regional organisation and Premier Barnett says state money will be directed to newly amalgamated councils first.
It's a democratic trifecta, isn't it? Threats, coercion and bribery - all in the name of more efficient government. Of course, the minister has now recanted and been quoted as saying, "We're totally committed to the process of voluntary amalgamation", but on a scale of public sincerity, I'd say he ranks right up there
with Kyle Sandilands.
Which is why I am puzzled about the Premier's position. If he's serious about creating significant savings for ratepayers, why not begin by amalgamating supposedly wasteful councils in his own back yard?
Peppermint Grove, for example.
I know Mr Barnett has already taken the Marie Antoinette approach in labelling it WA's "Monaco", but why not show some good old-fashioned Aussie egalitarianism and merge this tiny, inefficient council with, say, Mundaring? It has a ring to it, hasn't it? Monaco meets Mundaring?
The Hills come to the city and the weir meets the Swan - it couldn't be a more perfect fit. And under the Barnett/Castrilli wish list, it wouldn't present a single obstacle. You see, the two shires are only 50km apart and that wouldn't create any difficulty for the respective residents to participate in local
council affairs, would it?
Many of the country shires that these two reckon should merge or "wither on the vine" are already a lot further apart than a mere 50km. I know some rural, elected members who travel more than 150kmjust to attend a council meeting.
If efficiencies of scale are not good enough for Peppermint Grove, why shouldn't the rest of the state be protected in the same way? If it's good enough for the silvertails in Peppermint Grove to pick up the phone and have direct, local accountability from their local councillor, then it's good enough for every other ratepayer around the state.
Obviously there are inefficiencies and duplications across some districts, particularly in the metropolitan area, and overall some councils that do need to be rationalised, but where is the plan and who will pay?
Why isn't consideration being given to the social and economic costs of a town "withering on the vine" as a result of a merger?
There is already a large body of evidence which sets out precisely what not to do and the minister needs only to park his considerable backside on a plane for a handful of hours to discover how to avoid a disaster.
Queensland's obsession with council amalgamation under Peter Beattie has cost in the order of$200 million, most of it paid by now-disgruntled ratepayers through increased rates and/or fewer services.
Far from delivering the touted benefits, many mergers have not worked and some are now considering de-mergers.
I realise our pollies are fond of re-inventing the wheel in order to justify their own existence, but surely the Queensland experience should at least serve as a massive warning sign.
Mr Castrilli's deadline for councils to make submissions is only a fortnight away. So far, the divisive and rudderless process has been going on almost as long as Michael Jackson's funeral and there is still no sign of a detailed explanation from his office as to the economic and social impacts.
Before the minister wipes one council off the official register, he must explain how taking "local" out of local government by creating far bigger districts will make it better. And before one more waffling press release rolls off his office printer, he must tell all taxpayers precisely how the total cost of implementation will be measured and reported and what everyone will have to pay, regardless of where they live.
If a single shire is forced to merge with a neighbour, both the minister and the Premier will be shown to be liars, but perhaps worse still, if "Monaco" is exempted as a "special case", the odious whiff of hypocrisy will be smelt in council chambers throughout the state."
Another 'Hear, hear' from me!
New Blog Address
I hope everyone has visited this new blog address.
I imported it to a new address because I have a number of blogs and needed to create a totally new profile for my Councillor Blog.
I had a lot of comments, reactions & a few followers on my blog that weren't imported. I hope everyone re-joins my blog and continues to add comments.
Vote Now! Or Later....
Council Elections will be held on October 17th, 2009, but you can vote anytime up to Friday 16th October at the Shire of Kent office.
With eight nominations for four positions and no wards in the Shire, we should get a lot more electors voting this year.
You only have to be a resident of the Shire, not a ratepayer. Make sure you have your say.
103 Schools Sign Up
The Independent Schools Program option has been enthusiastically embraced by forward thinking schools with 103 WA Schools signing up to be amongst the 30 pilot schools.
The WA School Teacher's Union lost their application to the WA Industrial Relations Commission in relation to their interim application for Orders re: lack of consultation, on Friday 4th September, 2009.
My belief is that the WASSTU had no right to interfere in this process by contacting Parent & Citizen Associations. The union represents TEACHERS, and should have no influence with parent organisations. The tactics employed were typical union scare-mongering, with non facts and inuendo calculated to frighten parents who may not be sure about the decision they had to make.
If we were to take the community's yes votes for the chance to take up the option to become a pilot school for the Independent Schools Programme, the School Council vote would have been a 'yes'. However, I feel that the last minute spiel sent out to P & C's by the TEACHER'S union, altered the perception of people, thereby losing the vote and, ultimately, our chance to show what Nyabing Primary School could be.
Shire Elections Hotly Contested
Wow! Eight nominations for four positions!
That's just so encouraging in my opinion. To me, it means that people are passionate about their community. So much so, they are prepared to go out to bat for them.
Well done to the following people who have nominated for Council:
Taryn Borgward
Gordon Browne
Scott Crosby
Renae Jury
Mark Stephens
Our incumbants who are nominating again are Neil Grant-Williams, Lucy Skipsey and myself.
Each candidate's profile can be viewed at the Shire offices.
I wish everyone the very best in their campaigns.
Shire of Kent Election Nominations
Things are hotting up in the run up to the Shire of Kent elections on October 17th.
With four positions available, so far there are six nominations. This is fantastic news for our Shire.
One of the criticisms in our report back from the Local Government Reform Committee was that our elections are rarely contested.
Perhaps the fact that the Shire now does not have any wards has changed the way people view their representation.
Cr Crosby and I have been particularly active in lobbying our community to encourage people to nominate. It appears this has paid off with three people from the Nyabing community nominating.
I have re-nominated for what, I think, will be my last term should I be elected. That will make ten years in local government which is a long time! I would like to see our Shire through the reform process to help make sure that any reform we undertake or are forced to undertake is right for us.
Response to Katanning Submission from Gnowangerup
The President of Gnowangerup Shire, Cr Ken Pech, has issued a media statement in response to the Shire of Katanning's aggressive approach to reform. To read more about the Shire of Katanning's submission, click here and scroll down.
Below is Cr Pech's statement:
'The Shire of Gnowangerup is incredulous at the reported outpourings (ABC Radio and Great Southern Herald) that have been emanating from the President of the Shire of Katanning and Mayor of the Town of Narrogin, regarding Local Government Reform.
Surely, Katanning Council must realise that this type of behaviour and attitude to its surrounding Shires has contributed to them not having many “Local Government Friends” – they just don’t get it. They may class themselves as a regional centre, but they certainly don’t behave as such. They enjoy regional advantages such as big business, high schools and health services, all of which create considerable activity that doesn’t cost their Local Government one red cent. The services that their Council maintain are no different to those of outlying councils such as ours; to suggest they need a bigger mass of broad acre agricultural land to remain viable, suggests that they should review their financial and asset management. If they rated these regional businesses appropriately, perhaps they wouldn’t be on a land grab. We will deal with the State Government in our way; not be dictated to by a council that clearly has difficulty managing its own affairs.
The Shire of Gnowangerup is going through its Reform process with like minded councils who we know understand the requirements of their people and will look after their small towns. For the Katanning Council to berate other Shires because they don’t agree with our approach smacks of dictatorship such as we see in third world countries. We can and will work with like minded shires.
I am not sure who the Katanning Shire President thinks runs small councils but, in our case, it’s the elected members; maybe other attitudes exist in regional centres such as Katanning. To imply that Chief Executive Officers are manipulating reform for their own self interest is tantamount to slander.
We suggest Katanning improves its own performance: we will continue to run our Council in a way that suits our electors and community.'
I say, "Hear, hear!"
How to work with your neighbours
The Shire of Brookton understands how important it is to work with your neighbours when discussing reforms such as amalgamation, unlike the Shire of Katanning (see previous post).
Here is a media release issued by Acting CEO, Stan Kocian and Cr Barry Coote, Shire President on the 4th September:
'BROOKTON COMMUNITY ACCEPTS EXPANDED LOCAL MODEL
Approximately 90 Brookton residents turned out for what was a constructive and positive community meeting to discuss amalgamations and structural reform, with over 75% supporting an amalgamation model of Beverley, Brookton, Pingelly and Wandering.
This preference was also strongly supported in a community survey that shows 64% agreeing with this model.
The resultant amalgamated group would have total revenue of $14.7 million and a growing population of about 4,300, with 2,224 electors.
President Barry Coote noted that “as in any marriage, we all bring something to the partnership. We all have our strengths, but it is the sum of those that adds real strength to this model.”
A concern of smaller shires is the potential loss of staff and their families to regional centres and the flow-on effects within the local economy – a major plus of this model will be the retention of a local presence due to housing availability.
Also highlighted were the similarities in our demographics, recent population growth, and impact of our peri-urban location. Along with interests in common we also share community values and methods of operation.
This has been demonstrated in a variety of resource sharing projects over an extended period of time – this has included Town Planners, Building Surveyors/Environmental Health Officers, contract service providers and specific initiatives like the shared speed trailer.
Our communities are also well integrated with inter-school sporting groupings as well as most of the wider sporting associations and Local Drug Action Group.
The Brookton Shire Council will be formally finalising its position at the September meeting, based on community views provided at both the town hall meeting and the survey.
The Councils of Beverley, Pingelly and Wandering have given in-principle support for Brookton to include this model in our submission, and further talks will be taking place following scheduled community meetings in Beverley and Pingelly next week.'
Now, that seems like a sensible way to talk to your neighbours about local government reform.
Independent Public Schools Opportunity Lost
Last night, the Nyabing School Council voted on the option to become a pilot school in the Education Department's Independent Public School programme.
Over the time I've been discussing this issue with parents and community members, I felt that most people were in favour of this exciting opportunity. Some had a couple of reservations, but could see the benefits of becoming an IPS due to ample consultation and information being provided by the administration staff at Nyabing Primary School.
This feeling has since changed since the State School Teachers Union campaigned P & C's with their own special brand of scare-mongering. The SSTU's comments played on people's fear of change and uncertainty in the future. A very one sided notice went out to parents with no time for the Department or the school to counter their argument before the final decision had to be made by School Council on Monday night.
The vote last night had to be an absolute majority. With a couple of members abstaining, this already made a positive outcome less likely. The final vote was a 'no'.
I'm very disappointed in the result as I thought we had a proactive parent community. The School Council had a really difficult time deciding which way they should vote due to the lack of response from the parent community. I don't envy them in having to make this choice and I imagine that they chose 'no', as it was a safe choice.
It appears that less than half of the families even bothered to complete a survey, which is disappointing in itself. Does this show apathy? I believe so. Some people feel it shows that people don't understand the concept or didn't have enough information, so didn't want to complete a survey. Information was readily available from the website, the registrar and the principal at school. No one rang or emailed for more information.
I certainly hope that this apathy doesn't exist in the wider community when it comes to our Local Government Survey. I'm hoping that people will see this as an important decision to make and will help Council in making that decision.
Here is a report from a Queenslander who experienced forced amalgamation. I have changed the names of the towns, councils and shires to names of chocolates. What can I say? I like chocolate...
"I am very pleased to pass on the experiences of forced amalgamations. My former shire of Kit Kat is now one of the members of the amalgamated council of Picnic Regional Council (after a name change from Flake Regional Council as at the time of the first election, the name of Flake was opposed from the very beginning because it was a former town council at the centre of the donut but the government would not listen. However people power in the last couple of months sought the change and was successful). I am now a bystander from the amalgamations as I relocated to the neighbouring Cherry Ripe Shire which was relatively unaffected by amalgamation apart from having a reduction of representatives from nine councillors plus the Mayor (at which I was successful) to four plus the Mayor.
As far as I can see there is no benefit as yet from the process only lots of cost (in the millions) large increases in rates to cover the costs as the government will not give any assistance to the blow-outs because they are flat broke!!
The town of Crunchie, which was the administrative centre for the Kit Kat Shire, is suffering badly as the office which was once a vital hub for all the activities now has the feeling of a morgue. The people of the shire are totally demoralised, rarely see a representative (the old council area did not get one elected representative on the new council, where formerly they had nine plus the Mayor).
Services are just about non-existent , road maintenance has declined to a point where roads that were identified as priority one and would be graded twice a year now have been graded once in 18 months, robust plant replacement programs have been trashed and a directive to purchase second hand machinery and rebuilds for major breakdowns are across the board, school enrolment declined from around the stable 100 for many years dropped to 50/60 in twelve months, houses vacant everywhere whereas before council had to move in houses to meet the demand.
All major repairs for machinery is done in Flake (machinery freighted to central workshop). I quite often talk to my old work colleagues and they are totally demoralized and where they went that extra mile for the old council they tell me they do not have the inclination to do one bit more than they are paid to do as the community spirit is no longer there. They tell me the communication is appalling and half the time they do not know what they are supposed to be doing.
I could go on for ever, I am so sad ,as the little Kit Kat Shire was identified in the highest category for sustainability for a rural shire and there was no good reason to see it amalgamated with any other shire apart from to prop up shires that had been categorised as unsustainable. Now all amalgamation has achieved is one larger unsustainable council.
Similarly, I received the following comment from a Qld CEO of a Shire not amalgamated:
'The Queensland reform is yet to provide any benefits , as I see it. The cost of amalgamation has been huge for the affected Councils. Very large increases in rate levies have been a result over the past two budgets across the State. The cost of wages equalization alone resulted in an impost of several million dollars for some Council’s.
Then the cost of IT mergers is huge also , with the annual expense of rental on the lines running into several hundred thousand dollars.'
From discussion with affected CEO’s , it will take years to get back to some semblance of order , and the staff morale is extremely low" .
Sounds promising, doesn't it?
Interview with Minister Castrilli
This interview with the Minister for Local Government, John Castrilli was held on 13th March 2009.
Click here
After listening, click the BACK button on your browser to return to my blog.
I can't believe that someone could repeat themselves so much no matter what question is ask
The interviewer tried to push him on his stance on forcing amalgamations and no way would he even rule out the option. He just kept repeating the same thing over and over and over again!
The minister is being a typical politician and saying something without saying anything at all.
Blog to stay open!
I've received advice from WALGA about my blog:
"With regard to your enquiry concerning the keeping of a blog, it is not uncommon for elected members to express their personal views by whatever method or media they choose. The Association advises elected members to take care any comment they make is not in contradiction with role of a President/Mayor, to speak on behalf of the Local Government, nor to do any thing that may contravene the Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007."
I think that my blog satisifies the above criteria, so I will keep it. I've had many, many positive comments from people both within and outside our Shire about the concept of a blog as well as the content that I have entered.
My intention is to inform, educate and express my opinion. People are welcome to comment and disagree with my opinion, so I feel this is a fair process.
The South Australian Amalgamation Experience
If you are still thinking that amalgamation is a positive experience for our Shire and others like it, you may be interested to read the following. This is an excerpt from a person in South Australia who has experienced amalgamation:
"The District Council of Yorke Peninsula was formed in Feb 1997.The Council covers an area of 5,834 sq kms, has a distance of approximately 175 kms between its northern and southern boundaries, and being a Peninsula, has a varying width east to west averaging approximately 30 kms.
The Council is unique in comparison to other Local Government Authorities in that it is bordered by sea on three sides and as such has 435 kms of coast line. The Council shares its northern boundary with the District Council of the Copper Coast, District Council of Barunga West and the Wakefield Regional Council.
BRIEF:
At the time of amalgamation we were lead to believe we would be basically rolling 4 into 1. That Minlaton being the more central location would be upgraded to accommodate extra senior staff and become the main office premises and the other 3 offices would close and become “shop front” only, for customer service requests, dog registration etc. Later, major renovations were carried out at Minlaton increasing the size for extra staff... staff that we didn’t know we had to have... THEN, renovations elsewhere followed with an upgrade of the offices in Yorketown , then the renovation of the Minlaton Town Hall Supper Room to become a Council Chamber. (Yes we had 4 very good council chambers but suddenly none considered suitable.)
Maitland not to be out done then had the Council offices updated. The upstairs of Minlaton Town Hall (formerly used as a picture theatre) was turned into offices. Followed by the building of a totally new office complex attached to the existing Yorketown offices. And still, now some 12 years on we continue to have renovations and extensions to offices that were to be non existent but are more than well utilized and cater for the ever growing number of staff.
I have been present at meetings where the Council have been asked how many current employees, they have...the answer is usually ...around 150. However they will never give the break down of inside workers to outside workers. Eg white collar to Blue collar. We have far too many secretaries and assistants, managers and pa’s. We have 2 full time IT “specialists”.
Things that come to mind since amalgamation
NO maintenance is done on the local halls. Every town has an Institute or Hall which is Council property. Towns now desperate and setting up public committees and raising funds as halls in such bad state of repair and must be fixed. Small communities are proud of their local hall.
Town ovals and facilities have been let go, little or no maintenance. Sporting Clubs being charged increasing fees for use of playing fields and club rooms, while having to undertake repairs and maintenance as well.
Each community has had to raise funds to upgrade their own town playgrounds...Very little / if any, financial help from LG.
Several communities have a Tidy Towns Group who carry out maintenance and gardening in their relevant town. Again very little if any financial help from LG and very little if any service from them. Eg..volunteers now water and mow ovals, prune town roses , clean town barbecues etc.etc.
Excess machinery and vehicles were sold off after amalgamation....only to find a year or so later that we didn’t have enough and that the plant we had, had to be shifted further distances. Unproductive work days.
Gravel roads are graded less. No gravel on roads, so when they are graded, nothing is achieved.
We have a northern and Southern work depot and work gang... up to 2 hours a day can be lost in their travel to and fro a job and shifting equipment.
Many tens of thousands of dollars and voluntary hours have been contributed to the success of these parks. There will be no return to the community. In Stansbury’s case there is threat to loose the Visitor Centre as the funds from park support this and the town office.
The Community's Tidy Towns Group, who were finalists in Australia’s Tidiest Town will be without funds and the successful Seaside Markets will be lucky to do another summer season as marketing and admin are sponsored by the Progress. Ruthless...Council just see the dollar... and see it as theirs. "
So, our fears aren't imaginary, they're very, very real.
Survey
People within the Shire of Kent will receive a survey this week asking them to indicate a preferred option should the Shire be forced to amalgamate.
This has come about from information that came out of Local Government Week. Cr's Skipsey, Grant-Williams and I attended this year. Both the Minister for Local Government and the Premier indicated that VROC's were not acceptable as a structural reform option. Much discussion was had with some of our neighbouring shires. The general feeling was that some form of amalgamation was inevitable. Therefore it was in our own interest to indicate where our preferences for amalgamation lay.
This was further galvanised when the Shire of Katanning released their draft submission which looked at including the town of Nyabing in its 75km radius sweep.
The Shire of Kent is still committed to upholding it's constituent's wishes that we do not amalgamate. What we are requesting from the survey is, that if we are forced to amalgamate, which current Shire/s would you prefer to join?
I'm still totally against amalgamation for our Shire. I can't see the benefits at all. We are in a healthy financial position and since we are a farming community, our rate base is stable. Our communities are full of strong, forward thinking people. I believe we are perfectly capable of taking our community into the future without the need to join another shire or group of shires.
To me, amalgamation means huge expense with little result. The main beneficiary seems to be the major town in the group. Amalgamation won't mean we'll have more people living in our towns, it won't create employment in our towns (in fact, jobs will be lost!), there won't be more services in our towns, so what's the point?
For the 'Other' option, in our shire survey, I'm putting "No other option - no amalgamation".
I urge you to do the same.
Independent Public Schools
Nyabing Primary School has the opportunity to be a pilot school for the new Independent Public Schools Programme being trialled in WA.
WOW! What an opportunity!
As a small country school, we can show how proactive our community is - a small town with big ideas! We're not stuck in the past, but we're looking to securing our future. We can have more of a say in how we run our school because, as a community, we will own it. We will have the ability to shape our school to match our unique requirements, not other people's ideas of our requirements.
One of the Primary Schools in the Shire of Kent is looking at leading the way with change and allowing it's community to be a part of that process.
What does this tell our neighbours and our State Government? Yes, we will embrace change only if we are able to see major benefits from making those changes. We want empowerment, not subservience.
I urge the Nyabing community to get behind this great opportunity and fill out their surveys. Please return them to the school ASAP before Monday 31st August.
Blog may have to close...
I'm getting some legal advice from our local government association, WALGA on the legal aspect of having a blog as a councillor.
It was brought up at our monthly council meeting this week about whether I'm liable because I'm making public comments considering my position as a local government councillor.
It's sad when it gets to this. I thought we had a right to free speech no matter what position we hold in society. I've not made any comments on behalf of council, only my own thoughts on issues of council that affect us all as a community.
I sincerely hope that WALGA are able to clarify the issue and I can be allowed to continue keeping you all informed in this manner.
How to annoy, aggravate and alienate your neighbours
The Shire of Katanning have now presented their Draft Structural Reform Submission and are advocating boundary changes within the Shire of Kent. (Since writing my blog, I've had a comment from a reader who found it interesting that no community consultation was mentioned in the Shire of Katanning's submission. Interesting indeed!)
In their submission, the Shire of Katanning laments the lack of interest from its neighbours in progressing the issue of structural reform. The Shire states, "Despite undertaking substantial discussions with our neighbours there has been little if any progress towards an agreement on structural reform".
Their overall concept of their proposal is to
'form a new "Upper Great Southern Council", centred around the established regional centre of Katanning with a boundary radius of approximately 75km'.
The arguments behind this proposal include the belief that a Local Government's service area should match it's rating area. As a 'donut' council, Katanning is considered to provide services to a population that lives outside of their 'ratable' area.
A good sounding argument you would assume. However, if I look at the services that our family personally accesses, I would say that the cities in Perth provide most of the services we use that our immediate local area doesn't provide. Of course, I use banking and shopping facilities in Katanning, but these are not provided by the Shire. I would also say, that without the support of the surrounding shires, the shops and banks in Katanning wouldn't be doing so well...
The Shire of Katanning appears to believe that banks, shops and schools are a part of the service that they provide to the community.As for the services they do provide, I believe that there is a 'user pays' system. I have been told that people who are not in the Shire of Katanning pay more than locals to use the swimming pool, for example.
So, I'm not sure that this argument holds water. Perhaps a lot of people outside the Shire use the Katanning Library (I use their toilets!) and tramp through the Art Gallery?
The Shire of Katanning have presented a number of options for the Minister for Local Government to consider in their submission.
Option 1 is the "amalgamation of 8 shires around a 75km radius of Katanning and another amalgamation in an arc around Albany".
The Shire of Katanning is currently working with the City of Albany in planning groupings of "regional centres". In a proposal to our Local Government Minister, Katanning have the view that the current structure of local government in WA 'hinders effective governance in the region'. Their preferred option for the Minister is to "remove present local government boundaries and form new larger Local Governments based around established regional service centres of Albany, Katanning, Narrogin, Northam, Merredin etc."
Option 2 is to "reduce the number of Local Governments in the Great Southern Region".
The submission provides a suggestion that the region be divided into 'zones'. Southern, Western, Northern (2 options), Eastern.
Option 3 is the "algamation of all 11 Shires in the Great Southern Region".
This option has come from the City of Albany and many councils questioned the viability of effectively delivering services to such a diverse and unwieldy collection of regions.
Option 4 is to "do nothing - Katanning stands alone and requires that all grant funding recognise Katanning as providing services to the area and provides compensation accordingly".
This option then goes on to discuss the 'inequity of grant funding', in particular, the Financial Assistance Grants which are provided to the State Government by the Federal Government for distribution. A table is provided showing $ per head of population, but not per acre of land the Shire is servicing.
Another table shows the 'inequity' of the Rudd Economic Stimulus Package Allocations, again as a $ per head figure.
The comment is made, "Although the Shire of Katanning provides many of the regional services to the smaller Local Governments, the grant allocations serve to 'prop up' the smaller shires". (How to win friends and influence people)
The Shire of Katanning have indicated that their "preferred solution" is to "encourage the Minister to completely rethink the current Local Government boundaries". A radius of 75km around the town is discussed once again. This would take in all or parts of Kojonup, Wagin, Gnowangerup, Broomehill-Tambellup, Cranbrook, Dumbleyung, Kent and Woodanilling.
This is essentially splitting the Shire of Kent. The Shire of Katanning suggest that the eastern portion could be taken up by Lake Grace.
This resultant new "Upper Great Southern Shire" would have a combined population of around 12,000 with a rate base of about $11m and a staff of 232 in an area of 17,500km2 . The proposal is to have 12 councillors to begin with and eventually reduce to 8 elected members.
The issue of smaller towns is addressed under the following headings:
"Potential loss of employment and consequent eventual loss of population".
The Shire of Katanning has assured the "townships" of Woodanilling, Broomehill, Nyabing and Dumbleyung that "service levels...could and should be maintained, at least in the short to medium term , to ensure that the residents of these towns suffer no substantial loss of services".
This is interesting. Why do our towns only receive good service levels in the short to medium term? I guess it would be easier to have a town close down, then there's less grumbling about why the ovals are looking shabby and the pool needs maintenance. Or, am I just being cynical?
The submission also reports that our towns would not be able to justify an administration presence. The Shire of Katanning would maintain 'shopfront services' in these locations if the community supports and uses them.
"Loss of local Representation and Community Identity".
Mention is made in the Shire of Katanning's submission of an elected member ratio of 1:700. That would leave the western end of the Shire of Kent (the area the submission is considering) with about one third of a councillor!
"Loss of location specific services, ie, medical services"
Although the example given does not necessarily relate to our shire, the submission indicates that if the community wishes to keep such services, then Specified Area Rating would be used to pay for the service.
The submission also includes a "Transitional Timeline" which is as follows ("in an ideal world"):
- March 2010 - decision and announcement of new structure by State Government
- June 2010 - existing CEO's depart and Interim CEO and Commissioners appointed
- October 2011 - new councillor elections
- January 2012 - new CEO appointed
- October 2013 - reduction in Councillor numbers from 12 to 10
- October 2015 - reduction in Councillor numbers from 10 to 8
In a discussion under the heading, "Regional Grouping", further comments are made about the lack of interest in neighbouring shires in forming an alliance with Katanning. The City of Albany has apparently also experienced the same issue. The two have endorsed a Memorandum Of Understanding recently.
A list of all the meetings and forums where the Shire of Katanning has been present shows there dogged persistence in pursuing their idea of structural reform.
Although I have been present at only one of the meetings where Katanning was present and reform discussions were had, the overall impression many have perceived from representatives of the Shire of Katanning is of arrogance rather than alliance. At this particular meeting, held in Dumbleyung in March 2009, the president, Mr Phil Rae, kindly told me that I needn't worry, Katanning had no interest in amalgamating with the Shire of Kent. I'm pretty sure that the town of Dumbleyung is about as far east as any representatives from the Shire of Katanning have ventured.
The remaining submission deals with proposals/submissions previously put to the Minister and WALGA on amalgamation and reform.
I find it interesting that the Local Government Advisory Board chose to ignore the Shire of Katanning when considering the amalgamation of Broomehill and Tambellup Shires. What does this tell us?
Royalties for Regions
Council will begin looking at projects which can be funded by Stage 2 Royalties for Regions grants.
What sort of projects would you be interested in undertaking in our communities?
The criteria for expenditure is as follows:
- address infrastructure requirements
- improve asset management and capacity building
- encourage standardised asset management practices and improved regional governance in local government.
PINGRUP:
-
Assist with upgrade of one of the accommodation units at the Caravan Park with facilities for couples. This has already been funded by the PPA through a grant. - Satellite Internet for the Telecentre, or upgrade the Exchange to ADSL2+
- New Community Building to include new Telecentre rooms and office for visiting professionals. Community members have said they'd like an office for visiting health professionals, IT specialist and the visiting Child Health Care Nurse.
- Assist with upgrade of Ladies Changerooms at Pavilion
- Build Accommodation Units at Caravan Park
- Employ consultant to plan the Historical School Site landscaping and building fit-out.
I'm planning to advocate that the Shire use some of the money to upgrade our asset management systems and perhaps join a structured assets and infrastructure program. As this is a very expensive undertaking which will require a large percentage of staff's time, we can use Royalties for Regions regional funding to employ a person to manage the three (or more) council's assets and infrastructure programs. Other councils in our region may want to be a part of this too, so it would be wise to consider our neighbours if we decide to investigate this project.
If you have any ideas on how we can best utilise our regional funding, please leave a comment.
Alternatively, you may phone or email me:
p/f: 0898291076
m: 0427 297 712
e: skinflint@skinflint.com.au
Local Government Elections
Elections will be coming up on October 17th, 2009.
This year, instead of voting for nominees for your ward, you will be voting for all the people who put up for council.
That includes any incumbent councillors whose term is up and who are re-nominating. Thank goodness WALGA managed to persuade the Minister for Local Government to push through Parliament the change from the proportional preferential voting system back to first-past-the-post. This not only makes things easier for our staff, but is considered to be more transparent and less likely to be manipulated by anyone including the major political parties.
It is therefore important that as many people as possible vote on election day. This will ensure fair representation of our two communities. At present we have 4 councillors from Pingrup and 4 councillors from Nyabing. This has worked very well over the time I have represented our Shire and a continuation of this balance would be fair and equitable for all.
If you are not on the electoral roll, please make sure that you enrol. Rolls will close on the 28th August, so please get your name down before then. As taken from the Department of Local Government and Regional Development website:
"Local Government Elections
Enrolling to Vote
Enrolments for the next ordinary elections on Saturday, 17 October 2009 will close on 28 August 2009.
To be eligible to vote in local government elections, you need to be either a resident, an eligible non-resident occupier of rateable property in the local government district or a nominee of a body corporate that owns or occupies rateable property in the district or ward. You must also be correctly enrolled to vote in State or Commonwealth elections and be at least 18 years of age on election day."
More information, including definitions of the terms 'resident', 'eligible non resident' etc, can be found here.
Nominations for candidacy open on the 3rd September and close on the 10th September. Information about standing for council can be found on the Department of Local Government and Regional Development website: Standing for Council
If you are at all interested in keeping your community strong and vibrant and would like to make a difference, have your say and determine future policy, then I urge you to consider standing for council.
Council isn't just about Rates, Roads and Rubbish. There are many more issues and interests that affect your community. The Kent Shire Council is heavily involved in supporting community groups by allowing free use of our public buildings and recreation grounds, partnering with groups to assist with funding applications and working with groups to improve facilities in our towns.
Now, more than ever, Council are facing tough decisions on the future of our Shire. Structural Reform is the hot topic of the day and Council are advocating for our community.
Council have now signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Shires of Dumbleyung and Lake Grace, so regional matters will now be on the table more than ever.
Mr Ripper Admits He Comes from Nyabing!
The Hon Eric Ripper MLA, leader of the Opposition addressed the meeting following Mr Barnett. His first comment was that he came from the Shire of Kent and grew up in the town of Nyabing. Don't worry folks, I didn't sit there quiety!! I yelled out "Woohoo", and waved my arms, much to the embarrassment of my colleagues Cr Bruce Altham, Cr Neil Grant-Williams and Cr Lucy Skipsey.
Mr Ripper then went on to mention that he went to the small school of Nyabing Primary where his education became the grounding for his future life as a politician. Once again, the others ducked under their seats while I did the old "Woohoo!" and then yelled, "I still teach there!"
He vowed that he has serious reservations about the concept of Year 7 students being pushed to high school. He understood the pressures that this would place on people in rural areas and wondered what the educational outcome for such a move was. He received applause for this statement.
With respect to the issue of structural reform, he stated exactly what many of us at the meeting were thinking, that there has been secrecy, poor leadership and little consultation other than last minute whistle-stop tours to the regions. I like his analogy that the 'minister has sent the players out blindfolded, not having any idea where the goalposts are'. This is so true!
Mr Ripper felt that cooperation between councils with options such as resource sharing, including sharing personnel, was a significant way in which reform can be achieved. Other paths have been unexplored, which is my feelings exactly. He stated that local government reform should be about better services, not about disenfranchising.
We need to adopt common laws and practices between neighbouring councils so there's less red tape. He told the meeting that he didn't think the state government would be delivering the Royalties for Regions money in the coming years that Mr Grylls is promising. He said the Labour Government had a strong policy on investment in regions. I don't think the meeting agreed with him there.
I went out after his talk and caught him in the lobby where I shook his hand and introduced myself. He recognised the Tuffley name and I thanked him for his comments and discussed the Year 7 middle school debate.
Local Govt Week, Day Three, Part II
Prior to the WALGA (WA Local Government Association) AGM, the Hon Colin Barnett MLA, Premier of Western Australia, addressed the conference.
Mr Barnett left us in no doubt that by 'structural reform' he means a lot less local authorities. At present, there are 139 local governments serving around 2 million people in Western Australia.
Mr Barnett said he would like to see less than 100 local government authorities in 5 years time. He stated that the status quo is not an option. He also mentioned that forming VROC's (Voluntary Regional Organisations of Council) was only the second best option.
This leaves the Shires of Kent, Kukerin/Dumbleyung and Lake Grace with a huge dilemma. We have chosen the VROC path as our preferred method of reform. We would like to be given a chance to work with this before making any formal commitments such as a ROC (Regional Organisation of Councils) or amalgamation.
Representatives of these three councils have had discussions about our options during the week and will take our thoughts back to the rest of our councils when we return.
Local Government Week, Day Three
Our third and final day began with the introduction of four fine young leaders in our state:
- Elizabeth Shaw, 2009 WA Young Citizen of the Year
- Tim Goodwin, National Indigenous Youth Movement Member
- Albert Jacob JP MLA, Member for Ocean Reef
- Cr Lisa Schofield, City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder
These four were articulate and dynamic with much to say about letting young people in our communities have a voice. They all advocated Youth Advisory Councils as an effective way for young people to begin engaging with councils.
Although one or more said that councils need to look at new and innovative ways in which local government can engage with their community, they didn't really offer any suggestions.
Cr Lisa Schofield suggested more incentives for young people to join local government, but again, wasn't specific in saying what incentives are needed.
I believe that the Shire of Kent is trying to make the job of being a councillor more accessible to young people. We are looking at purchasing laptops for councillors to access all our council emails and paperwork such as agendas. We have also increased our remuneration package. If you are at all interested in joining council, please contact me to discuss this further. It can be very rewarding and enables you to make a difference in your community.
Lisa also mentioned that our community needs educating about local government, but she didn't offer up any ideas about how this is to be achieved. I'm hoping that my blog goes someway into assisting our community with learning about the current issues affecting local government and the community.
Following our young leaders, we were inspired by the amazing story of young film maker Khao Do as he delivered a fascinating talk about his life. Arriving in Australia as a two year old refugee, travelling in a tiny, overloaded fishing boat, Khao went on to become an award winning film maker and was named 2005 Young Australian of the Year.
I didn't take any notes during Khao's presentation as I was totally absorbed in his story. What an amazing young man who faced incredible stumbling blocks along the way to success. He is an ardent footy fan and spent his school years desperately trying to make it big in the senior team, despite being, "too small, not the right ethnic type and not very good at football". He finally ran out with the team one day and kicked their first goal in a game which they eventually won.
Khao stressed that his personal mantra is to "always look at what you have and not what you lack". An excellent way of looking at local government in this particular political climate!!
Local Government Week, Day Two
Today our first session was all about the economic recovery, a financial health update.
Dr Chris Caton isn't your average boring old economist. He's clever, funny and very interesting. He gave a concise and visually interesting outlook on global economics, trends and forecasts.
Chris states that Australia is in recession. Apparently, there's no official definition for 'Recession'. The unofficially accepted condition is when the GDP is down for two successive months. This hasn't actually happened in Australia, so the powers that be can say, 'we are not in recession'.
However, Dr Caton believes that the unemployment rate is a good indicator, and, Australia's unemployment rate has risen to the level where we are now in the grip of a recession. Certainly not as severe as we have previously experienced, but a recession, none the less.
All in all, Australia is looking pretty good. Our recovery appears to be slower than other countries, but this is due to the fact that Australia's fall wasn't as steep. Another interesting thing to note was that Australia's economic rises and falls are closely related to the US economy. Well, no real surprise there.
Dale Alcock followed with a reasonably interesting talk, but minus the facts and figures on the screen. If he'd taken a bit of time to throw together a few charts to support his comments or even photos, his point would have been just that much stronger.
He had a few daggers to throw at the Towns of Vincent and Cottesloe in regards to planning, both approvals and policies. Why didn't he have some photos to back all this up? I admire Dale immensely, but someone in his company needs to get him organised and into the 21st century when it comes to the tools of technology.
Unfortunately, after that, I developed a huge headache that looked like it might turn into a migraine and I had to leave part way through the next speaker's session on Constitutional recognition for local governments.
The evening was spent in a very productive way with a get together between the Shires of Kukerin/Dumbleyung, Lake Grace and Kent to discuss our options with regard to the new information we've gained from both the National's Leader, the Hon. Brendon Grylls and the Local Government Minister, the Hon. John Castrilli.
Each of our Shires is putting forward the preferred option of 'no' to amalgamation, which is one that our constituents have requested. We will indicate that our councils prefer the VROC model of reform.
However, as more information is coming to hand and the media are starting to take hold of the issue, it's appears that this may not be the acceptable option. Both Ministers have stated that they will not accept the status quo, with Mr Gryll's indicating the R4R carrot will be withdrawn for that particular choice. So much for 'a voluntary process'. I'm very disappointed in Mr Gryll's stance. I voted for the National Party with the idea that their platform was to protect rural interests.
Therefore, our shire representatives may need to look at different models such as a formalised ROC. To me, this looks like another level of government. Will a ROC work? I don't know. I'd like the chance to try a VROC first, but there doesn't seem to be any chances within this process since timelines are extremely short and extremely rigid.
I just hope that the decisions we make will be the best ones for our communities. I feel the weight of the world on my shoulders right now.
Local Government Week, Day One
Today started with a bang. Frans Johansson, author of the Medici Effect, delivered a fast paced, loud and fascinating talk entitled 'Renaissance - The Medici Effect'.
This guy was incredibly dynamic, energetic, clever and funny. But it was what he had to say that made the most impact.
Frans talked about how teams and organizations can create an explosion of remarkable ideas at the intersection of different fields, cultures and industries. The main points from his talk were as follows:
-'Intersections' -Develop new ideas from combining ideas from various perspectives
-'Diversity drives innovation'.
-All new ideas are combinations of existing ideas eg. The Bikini + The Burqua = The Burqini
-Diverse Teams see things differently - therefore, make sure your teams are made up of very diverse minds and cultures
-The more ideas you have, the more likely you are to have a good idea. (Simple really, but not something we always do!)
A wonderful example was given about the challenge given to architect Mick Pearce. He was asked to build an attractive, functional tall building in Harare, Zimbabwe. But, the catch was, it was to have no air-conditioning! Now, Harare tends to get pretty hot in summer and temperatures can drop to single figures overnight.
Fortunately, Mick was a pretty broad thinker and he was able to achieve the seemingly unachievable by studying termites. Termites use a clever system of cooling and heating in their mounds that are built in the African plains. They direct breezes at the base of the mounds with cool, wet mud and channel these through the mound when needed. They build new vents and close old ones in order to regulate temperature precisely.
The company which hired him immediately saved $3.5m simply by not purchasing the air conditioning hardware. Temperature is a constant 22 degrees and the buildings use 10% less energy than those around it.
The two speakers who followed held little interest for me as their talk was all about City Revitalisation. Of the two, Evan Jones, National General Manager of Planning, Mulitplex Living, was very interesting and had some great examples of good and bad town planning.
After lunch, Brendon Grylls presented an update on Royalties for Regions. He also explained his support for Minister Castrilli's reform strategies. Brendon spoke eloquently and showed his passion for the survival of rural communities.
The President of the Shire of Roebourne presented a really interesting look at what it's like to have a community that is booming due to mining, but then has to cope with all the negatives that come from this including artificially elevated living costs, difficulties getting infrastructure on the ground and the fly in, fly out population problems.
The following speaker sent everyone to sleep. We all headed for the coffee when he finally finished! The sad thing was, he had a lot of interesting things to say, he was just unable to say them in an interesting way.
The afternoon finished with the man of the moment, the Minister for Local Government, Hon. John Castrilli MLA. He once again re-iterated his plans for the state. It seems he will not move beyond his single and only idea of amalgamation as the one size fits all solution for structural reform in Western Australia.
Following this, we had the CEO of the new entity of the City of Geraldton-Greenough. Since this was an extremely sensible amalgamation, I was prepared to turn off, but this young and dynamic guy was very interesting and had a lot to say about how WA is so Perth-Centric. Other states are not so Capital City oriented.
The next speaker was also very interesting and topical for me as he is the Chair for the South East Avon Voluntary Regional Organisation of Councils. This group has been successfully running for five years and follow a model of organisation which is based on a South Australian model. Section 42 of the Local Government Act (SA) allows for a local government to establish a subsidiary. The system uses a Body Corporate Charter. The Minister approves the application and the Charter. The group is lobbying State Government to change the Western Australian Local Government Act to allow for the same system.
A panel of the previous speakers then took questions from the audience. Confusingly, the Minister strongly dismissed the idea of VROC's as a suitable strategy for reform. He stated that he is looking at amalgamation and amalgamation only as a reform measure.
I wish he'd been around at the first session and listened to Frans Johansson. He may then realise that there are many ways in which a local government can achieve reform without having to amalgamate.
Outcome from Meeting with Minister
- Today the people in the Great Southern had the opportunity to talk to the Minister for Local Government, John Castrilli, at a public meeting in Wagin.
I was disappointed at the small contingent that turned up at the Town Hall. The Shire of Kent was well represented with four councillors and two community members.
People came from far and wide, with representatives from Wickepin, Katanning, Woodanilling and a number of other shires.
The Minister opened with the meeting by reading out the range of 'benefits' that are outlined in the Local Government Reform Steering Committee's "Structural Reform Guidelines, February 2009.
They are listed as:
- increased capacity for local government to better plan, manage and deliver services to their communities with a focus on social, environmental and economic sustainability
- increased capacity for local government to have adequate financial and asset management plans in place
- enhanced efficiency in the processing of planning, building and other licence applications made by business and community
- greater ability to attract staff including the provision of further career development opportunities
- greater competition for positions on council, and, in addition with other reforms, potential for enhanced government capacity
The process, as I understand it from the Minister's talk today, goes as follows:
1. Councils are to send Submissions to the Ministers office by August 31st with their preferred reform, amalgamation proposals and preferences.
2. The Minister will then give his recommendations to the State Government (around Dec 2009)
In providing recommendations, the Minister stated:
a) Those Councils wishing to amalgamate will be given every assistance to do so.
b)If a rural council indicated they did not wish to amalgamate, he would recommend to the State Government that they not be forced to do so.
The Minister was asked to clarify what the term 'building capacity' meant as this was a phrase he used frequently. I don't believe we received an answer to this.
Another question was raised as to the meaning of the use of the word 'diversity' in the assessment of a council's checklist. The term was used in the report back to the council indicating there was not enough diversity in their council structure. Again, the Minister was unable to clarify the meaning.
I asked a question of the Minister, "Why are you pushing amalgamation as a reform when there is research (FSRB in South Australia) showing that 'amalgamation brings with it significant costs and exaggerated benefits; and there are many other forms of cooperation and integration between councils with amalgamation being the most extreme and confronting form of integration'. The report also found that 'there are ways to overcome this disparity between councils' capacity to fund service delivery, including shared delivery service models, strategic alliances and virtual local governments.' "
I asked, "With this in mind, why is the Minister pushing amalgamation as the only sort of reform?"
The Minister's response was that the South Australian Government did not commission that report (SO???) and then proceeded to confuse everyone with a convoluted explanation of the South Australian model which did not really answer my question at all.
There were many impassioned comments and questions to the Minister which were answered with a similar circular response. The standard answer was that it was all about 'capacity building' and it was 'a voluntary process'.
The Minister seemed to have to rely on his Aide to supply vital answers and information to the meeting. His responses were repetitious and standardised, with little hard evidence or any indication of the distinctions that should be applied to city and rural council reform.
Interestingly, he mentioned that State Government needs to undertake reforms as well to improve their efficiency. My belief is that, when State Government complete an efficiency and sustainability checklist, then put forward a submission based on the results of the assessment of this checklist, and undertake the recommended reforms, then Local Government can follow suit. And, not before!!
At the conclusion of the meeting, I was asked to provide a comment for ABC Radio. I agreed to do so, and the question was, "What is the feeling you take away from this meeting today?"
They would have edited out any swearing, so I went with a response that indicated our frustration at the reform process, especially the checklist, and that I came away disappointed and frustrated.
I wish I'd had more time to think about it, as I would have re-iterated the fact that the State Government has still not provided us with any significant proof that their reform process of amalgamation will improve services and efficiencies.
An argument against amalgamation
The aim of council amalgamations, so the Minister for Local Government, John Castrilli says, is the 'potential to save ratepayers millions of dollars per year'. The Minister is advocating that amalgamation will reduce the cost of local service provision through increased operating efficiency. In other words, 'bigger is better'.
No systemic review of these outcomes has ever been done in Australia! If I could find any paper or report that shows that council amalgamations led to cost efficiency and better service delivery, I would support amalgamation.
There is revealing research into the impact of amalgamation in South Australia by the Financial Sustainability Review Board (FSRB) (2005) in its Final Report: Rising to the Challenge: Towards Financially Sustainable Local Government in South Australia (Dollery 2005). The FSRB (2005, 48) found that council 'size does not seem to matter much, with both larger and smaller councils both typically registering operation deficits in 2003-04.' Also mentioned is whether population density was a factor and the conclusion reached was 'the same is true for density characteristics, with both the denser and sparser groupings also both registering operating deficits that year'.
The Board also argued that although the architects of earlier structural reform in South Australia claimed the reform process had achieved 'recurrent savings' of $19.4 million per annum, 'whether the ongoing savings have in fact continued is a moot point'. The Board also concluded that, 'fewer, larger councils are not the instant or easy fix that many would like to believe, especially in non-metropolitan areas dominated by the "tyranny of distance" and other impediments'. (FSRB 2005, 85)
From these observations, the Board also concluded that 'amalgamation brings with it significant costs and often exaggerated benefits' and that 'there are many intermediate forms of cooperation/integration among councils, with amalgamation being the most extreme (and confronting) form of integration'.
Also, 'there are ways to overcome this disparity between councils' capacity to fund service delivery, including shared service models, strategic alliances and virtual local governments'. The report also stressed that 'collaboration between councils can and should be a major contributor to councils being financially sustainable in the future'.
The Commonwealth Grants Commission (2001, 52-3) found five main reasons for financial difficulties that confront Australian local government, three of which result from higher levels of government placing strictures and controls on local government:
1. 'devolution' - where a higher sphere of government gives local government responsibility for new functions
2. 'raising the bar' - where a higher tier of government through legislation or other changes, raises the complexity and/or standard at which local government services must be provided, thereby increasing the cost of service provision
3. 'cost shifting' - where federal or state government ceases to provide an essential service, thereby forcing the local authority to take over the responsibility
It is doubtful that amalgamation is going to alleviate or reduce these problems. No one has been able to prove that 'bigger is better'.
The City of Wanneroo has indicated in a document entitled 'Draft Community Engagement Brief', dated 18/6/2009, 'amalgamation programs conducted in other states have generally failed to improve financial sustainability. Indeed, it would seem that the financial position of many local authorities, both large and small, has continued to deteriorate. A national report by PricewaterhouseCoopers in recent years, indicated little difference from a sustainability perspective, between councils where amalgamations had been forced and councils in States such as Western Australia where forced amalgamations had not occurred'.
So, with all this evidence indicating just the opposite of what the Minister hopes to achieve through this reform, why is he still pursuing this course of action?
Meeting with Minister
The Minister for Local Government, John Castrilli, has organised a number of meetings around the state in order to explain the government's local reform agenda.
Time will be allowed for the public to question the minister about their concerns.
Everyone is urged to make an effort to attend the meeting with the Minister. The meeting for the Great Southern is to be held in:
I'm taking my car, so please contact me if you would like a lift to the meeting. I will be leaving straight after school at 3.10.
Submission Comments
For your convenience, you may use my blog to make comments that you would like to add to Council's Submission to the Minister regarding the Assessment Outcome for our Shire.
I will then pass all of the public comments received here on to our CEO, Alan Wright and DCEO, Christie Smith.
Please be as clear as possible and address your concerns without using emotive language. This is certainly an issue that affects us emotionally, but for our voices to be heard we need to be clear and rational in our arguments as to why we do not want to amalgamate.
Submission - what do we write?
Many community members are adamant that they do not want or need amalgamation. The general feeling is that in addition to it being an extremely costly exercise, we can see no benefit to be gained by amalgamating the Shire of Kent with any of our neighbours. In fact, the opposite seems to be the case.
We are a shire with a large area, though sparsely populated. True of any shire who's main land use is broad acre agriculture. Our shire is serviced by two small towns, providing community facilities such as paved streets, bitumised roads, town halls and excellent sporting & recreational facilities. With Katanning to the west and Lake Grace to the east, the community has no need of banks, doctors or other services that can be obtained in these two towns.
So with this is mind, it is necessary to think about what the Minister claims amalgamation will achieve.
In the Local Government Steering Committee's Structural Reform Report Guidelines, February 2009, the following list was supplied as to the outcomes that would be achieved through amalgamation:
- increased capacity for local government to better plan, manage and deliver services to their communities with a focus on social, environmental and economic sustainability
- increased capacity for local government to have adequate financial and asset management plans in place
- enhanced efficiency in the processing of planning, building and other license applications made by business and the community
- greater ability to attract staff, including the provision of further career opportunities
- greater competition for positions on council, and, in conjunction with other reforms, potential for enhanced government capacity
- larger local governments with greater capacity to partner with State and Federal government, and the private sector, to further improve services to the community
Put simply, in my view, amalgamation would destroy the small towns within the Shire of Kent.
Cr Cathy Crosby has sent information to everyone in the Shire of Kent with further 'benefits' outlined by the Local Government Advisory Board. Please read these in order to describe counter arguments as to why amalgamation would not be effective in providing such benefits for our communities.
Amalgamation - a little background
The Minister for Local Government, John Castrilli announced in February that he wanted all 139 Western Australian local governments to begin the process of reform through amalgamation. Although he later announced that no forced amalgamations will ensue, he has indicated that he could legislate in order to allow forced amalgamations.
Council were required to complete a checklist and submit this by April 30th. The checklist contained questions about Council's Finance and Asset Management planning, Long Term Strategic Planning, Natural Resource Management, Service Delivery to Communities, Governance and Political and Community Advocacy.
During this time, Councillors and staff attended a number of meetings and seminars to try to find out more about the Ministers proposal. We came away with the idea that no one really knew the agenda. Our local government association, WALGA, appeared to be equally in the dark as it seemed the minister has simply thrown out their reform recommendations as outlined in the SSS Report, released early in 2008.
Council and staff met with neighbouring shires to discuss sharing arrangements and possible Voluntary Regional Organisations of Councils as reform measures that would negate the need for amalgamation.
Council signed a Memorandum of Understanding to form a VROC with the Shires of Lake Grace and Kukerin/Dumbleyung at the July Council Meeting.
In completing the checklist, Council felt at the time that many of the questions didn't apply to shires of smaller populations such as ours. However, the questions were answered honestly and accompanied by the required documentation.The response from the Minister's office, based on the checklist, was received on the 8th June, 2009 and indicated that the Shire of Kent was assessed as Category Three: "significant structural reform including amalgamation and formalisation of regional groupings is required to ensure long term community and organisational benefit in order that the needs of current and future generations are met." As a result of this response, the Shire of Kent held public meetings in both Pingrup and Nyabing to gauge public response to this assessment. Both communities indicated by resolutions that they were not willing to amalgamate.
The Shire now has to complete a submission to the Minister based on both community and council responses.
The community must have their submissions to Council by close of business Friday 31st July, 2009. Council will then complete a Draft Submission and release this for public viewing on 10th and 11th August. Council will hold a Special Meeting on 12th August to finalise the Draft Submission.
At the August Council Meeting on the 19th, Council will ratify the Submission and it will be sent off to the Minister's Office.
The Minister is holding a number of public meetings around the state to provide a forum for community discussion. I will be attending the meeting in Wagin on August 4th. If anyone wishes to come along with me, please let me know.
Timeline:
- Community Submissions due: July 31st
- Draft Submission available for public viewing: August 10th and 11th
- Meeting in Wagin with Minister Castrilli: August 4th
- Special Meeting of Council to review Submission: August 12th
- Monthly Council Meeting where Submission will be ratified by Council: August 19th
