Dear LG Focus
The City of Stirling is taking up the fight to protect the areas it will lose from its boundary under proposed local government reform. Under the State Government’s blueprint, Stirling will lose the suburbs of Wembley Downs, Churchlands, Woodlands and Inglewood, along with its current section of Mt Lawley and parts of Dianella and Menora. Council has voted unanimously to take this tact after a groundswell of concern from local residents and community groups.
Two months ago, the City of Stirling was assured there would be no change to our boundaries and the City was held up as a ‘poster child’ in terms of the model that all local government should aspire to. Subsequently, we were told of the proposed carve-up to our boundaries with several suburbs being devoured by neighbouring new mega-councils to make them sustainable.
Since then, we heard that the Premier would be more flexible towards where the actual boundaries end up, which reaffirmed Council’s long-held stance that there should be no changes to our boundary. Our suburbs should stay in Stirling and not be transferred to other new councils for the sole purpose of making them sustainable, which we all know this is what it’s all about.
Stirling is collateral damage in this whole fiasco and would seem to some to be an easy target given our excellent financial standing. Make no mistake about this, as the blueprint stands the impact is massive for all the residents of Stirling. Our heritage, economies of scale and breadth of services on offer to our residents, current and future, is under serious threat. Frankly there are no benefits arising from these reforms for Stirling.
Feedback from residents will be considered in the final submission that will be put to the Local Government Advisory Board by 4th October 2013.
Yours sincerely,
Cr. David Boothman,
Mayor, City of Stirling
Dear LG Focus
The Referendum to recognise Local Government in the Federal Constitution is not going ahead. It’s time for the local government lobby group, the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA), to return public money.
The ALGA conscripted $10 million from local communities to run a now defunct referendum campaign, and another $10 million from taxpayers. The purpose for which the money was collected has now not eventuated. Accordingly, it is time to hand the public money back. While certain monies may have already been spent on the campaign, interest accumulated on approximately $20 million will offset this deficit. Therefore, every single dollar should be returned. In essence, ratepayers’ money should only be directed to fund their local services, and not a political campaign.
As a councillor, I want to believe that we live in a democratic country. Balranald Shire Council was EXPECTED to pay $8167.70 to this campaign. Councillors were advised to support the ‘Yes Case’ and were also given a full page of ‘speaking points’ to advocate the ‘Yes Case’. In simple terms, the approach to this referendum was far from democratic.
I understand that the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act has allowed Government to promote the ‘Yes Case’ only. However, from a layman’s point of view, one would expect money to be distributed evenly to allow both sides of this referendum to be heard and presented. It would seem that the one sided monopolisation of this political campaign has only served to erode public confidence in Government even further. Along with all levels of government and the press, Focus included, the ‘Yes Case’ was heavily represented. Thank you to those who did put forward specific points to explain supporting the ‘No Case’.
At our last Council meeting in August, a motion was put forward for the ALGA to return our ratepayer’s money to Balranald Shire Council based on the non-eventuation of the political campaign to promote the Yes vote. The motion was carried. One Councillor stated, “This (motion) is an insult. Of course they (ALGA) will give the money back”. We shall wait and see.
Yours sincerely,
Cr Lynda Cooke,
Balranald Shire Council. NSW
