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 following 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.
Showing posts with label amalgamation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label amalgamation. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, August 17, 2009
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"):
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?
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?
Friday, August 7, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
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?
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.
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:
Wagin
Tuesday 4th August from 4pm to 6pm.
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.
Monday, July 27, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
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:
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.
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:
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
