Letter to politicians

Thursday, October 29, 2009

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:

"We are both long time residents of the Shire of Kent and live in the town of Nyabing, at the western end of the Shire. The Shire of Kent is an agricultural region with a very large area and a small population. Many people are moving into our towns from the farming areas with the result that our towns are growing.

It is with great concern that we have been following the issue of local government reform, in particular the push by you for amalgamation.

We previously wrote to you in March after your announcement about amalgamations of local governments. No reply was ever received, nor any acknowledgement of our letter.

The Shire of Kent received the allocation of a “number 3” following their checklist submission, indicating that the Shire is unsustainable and needs to look at amalgamation.

Our Shire has held community meetings and the people in our shire showed they are vigorously opposed to any reform involving amalgamation. People are unable to see any benefits to our community. Council are unable to indicate benefits as they have not been outlined by the Dept of Local Government to our shire.

Reading reports from people who have experienced amalgamation in other states, it appears that the effects of amalgamation on small towns such as ours are extremely negative and detrimental.

One argument that we have been told is a reason to amalgamate is that the people in our community are using services from surrounding shires and therefore should be paying for such services in rate revenue. Surrounding Shires don’t supply the services accessed by our communities, State Government and local private industry provide these services! We access our own, Shire supported, community services for sporting and social needs.

Another argument is that in order to grow our communities and expand industry and business development, we need to amalgamate. If the State Government upgraded our electricity supply and engaged in land development within our towns, we would be able to encourage business and industry. Not being amalgamated has absolutely nothing to do with being unable to expand industry and business in our Shire.

The criterion provided by the State Government indicating that Shires of less than 1000 people should amalgamate is flawed. Population should not be an indication of sustainability.

Our shire is an agricultural area and does not support a large population, yet it produces millions of export dollars for our state!

Social factors have not been considered at all. The health and well being of our people in our shire is paramount. Just because we are a farming community does not mean we should have to travel hundreds of extra kilometres for sport, recreation and social events. Our small towns provide these facilities with our communities working in partnership with the shire to keep the facilities in top shape.

You have repeatedly stated, indeed, ad nauseum, that this is a voluntary process. We sincerely hope that this is the case. Our communities have indicated that they wish to remain as they are.

The other concern we have is the huge cost involved in the amalgamation process. Who will pay this impost? Wouldn’t the money be better utilised in supporting our communities that are already here?

It is unbelievable hypocritical to tell us that the Shire of Kent, with a land area of 6,500 square kilometres, should amalgamate, yet the Shire of Peppermint Grove, only 1.1 square kilometres, can stay as they are!

Amalgamation would mean our small towns would suffer due to lack of services since we would almost certainly lose our administration centre. This would have a domino effect on our community, with the resulting loss of staff. The outcome then means that our schools, our shops, including the Post Office and hotels will suffer. These are basic services. Our towns are around 60km from the next largest centres, with these sorts of facilities. Such a distance would mean children having to endure long bus rides or having to board away. This then creates a dysfunctional and fractured community.

Does our State Government support centralisation? They must, because that is the outcome for the less populated shire such as ours. People will move away.

Small towns are safe, happy communities. We have very little crime and very few social problems. Why change that?"

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!