Submission to IPART - Fit for the Future
Serving the Local Community Page 23. - "create high capacity councils that can
better represent and serve their local communities on metropolitan issues, and be
true partners of State and federal agencies"
"High capacity council"
When you write ' high capacity council' do you write in terms of satisfaction by the
local community it serves and represents? or in terms of number of people? or in
terms of dollar value of its assets or revenues? Evidence based on real case
scenarios infact show that neither number of people, dollar values give more
efficiency or productivity or deliver real value in dollars to their local communities.
Evidence shows that it is a case by case scenario that defines a high capacity
council. This again fails to be considered by your scale and capacity assessment
process.
"Better Represent"
As a member of the Strathfield local community it appears as though you are
suggesting that I am better represented and served by a council with 350,000 people
with one councillor representing 33,000 people. You have given no empirical
evidence for this and neither did the ILGRP report which made assumptions despite
evidence from other states and countries contradicting these assumptions.
"Serve their Local Communities"
You have not taken into account culture, identity and local communities where the
word 'local' is trully local and not 5 to 10km away. You have failed to define what you
mean by 'Local '.
If you were aware of the word for local, you and this state government would
understand that the local community of certain councils such as Strathfield have
overwhelmingly voted against any mergers. If you and this state government
understand the word 'serve the local community' any suggestion of forced mergers
against the will of the community would be of common sense to you especially in the
absence of any evidence of benefits for our community.
In fact one definition of local community is listed as :
A group of individuals that interact within their immediate
surroundings and often have a common cultural and historical heritage.
This definition does not fit in with your scale and capacity. Your scale and capacity
lacks any credibility when defining local communities and the service of them.
Local communities are best served with trully local representation within its own
community taking into account identity, culture and historical heritage.
"Metropolitan Issues"
Again you have not defined 'metropolitan issues'. A metropolitan constitutes a city
and its suburbs. Local councils address local suburban issues and state agencies
address broader issues outside its local community. If local councils take on
the broader issues outside their local communities why is there a need for state
representation? and what do you mean by true partners of state and federal
agencies?
Do you mean in terms of funding of projects that the state and federal government
no longer want to fund and so require local councils to levy and fund these projects
that the state and federal government have decided to undertake, or the funding of
roads and infrastructure normally funded by the state and federal government?
In conclusion the statement on page 23 is ill defined, ambiguous and gives no
comfort to the process and assessment you are undertaking.
Page 71 of the ILGRP report  ‘Keeping the local’ in local government so that
community identity and local democracy are maintained.
The above statement taken from the ILGRP report should be one of the main criteria
in your assessment. However you either have not considered it or it does not fit in
with your scope according to the state government’s agenda.
I urge you to reconsider any forced mergers and allow the process to enhance local
standalone councils to truly serve their communities and truly partner with state and
federal agencies with transparency and full community consultation and attention,
something this process has lacked since its inception in 2010.
Forced Mergers do not fit in with any local democracy.