On Local Council Amalgamations and the Dangers of Centralism By Ken Grundy

Dear Editor,

Local Government is once again in the spotlight for matters including amalgamation and lack of nominations at election time.

Some suggest voting should be compulsory but a responsible vote will be best achieved where only the interested voters participate.  What benefit would result from the disinterested voters’ influence?

Among the reasons for declining numbers seeking a Council role could be that it is seen as mostly ‘giving the nod’ to agenda items derived from remote sources like State and Federal Government and even the UN.  In contrast, approval of building and development has mostly been removed from local Council decision. Keen Councillors might prefer a more purposeful role.  I also acknowledge that individual Councillors who attempt to represent constituents with views which differ from the mainstream can be ostracised.  Not very encouraging for independent thinking or the buzzword ‘inclusion’!

The Premier recently tested the appeal for amalgamation with a poll of voters in the City of Mount Gambier and neighbouring Grant Council.  This was solidly rejected but the call for more amalgamations is again before us.  There is a need to consider the benefits frequently promised at the 1997 round of amalgamations. In fact, there were none because the very few efficiencies were more than dominated by increased staff, including more middle management and deputies and more office space often requiring upgraded office buildings.  No increase in services or reduction of rates has been noticed. Amalgamation means the emphasis on dealing with “local’ matters by local people is diminished.

Any form of centralisation means a loss of local input and the chance of a quick response to satisfy local people.

Yours etc

Ken Grundy