Local Government Structural Reform Online community survey

Results summary report

January 2014

Page 1 Background On 30 July 2013 the Western Australian state government announced its intention to merge the City of Subiaco and six other local governments into one council.

At its meeting on 26 November 2013 the council of the City of Subiaco resolved to conduct an independent survey among residents to evaluate community views on proposed local government structural reform. This independent telephone survey was carried out by the organisation Catalyse throughout December 2013. The results of the telephone survey will be provided to council to inform decision making.

For those community members who did not receive a phone call about the survey but still wanted to have a say, an online survey was developed by the City of Subiaco. This was a modified version of the telephone survey, and was carried out on the city’s online community engagement hub, Have your say Subiaco, from 6 – 16 December 2013.

This summary report deals with the results of the online community survey carried out by the City of Subiaco.

Methodology The online community survey carried out by the city was a slightly modified version of the telephone survey carried out by Catalyse. Modifications were made to allow the survey to be carried out online. The survey was open to all and all responses were anonymous.

The online community survey was advertised on the city’s website and on Have your say Subiaco, the city’s online community engagement website.

A hard copy version of the online survey, with an attached reply paid envelope, was available from the City of Subiaco Administration Centre, for those who preferred not to participate online.

A total of 185 responses were received, including 14 hard copies.

Participation in the online survey was on a self-selection basis and is therefore not a representative sample of the views of the City of Subiaco community.

Results The results for the online community survey (including hard copy responses) shown in this report are presented question by question. The percentages shown in the results have been rounded up or down to the nearest whole number.

The information included in the survey to explain the various questions is also provided in the results below.

Proposal to merge seven western suburbs councils The state government plans to merge all seven councils in the western suburbs (including most of the City of Subiaco and all of Cambridge, Claremont, Cottesloe, Mosman Park, Nedlands and Peppermint Grove as well as parts of surrounding suburbs) into one council. The new

Page 2 council would extend from West Leederville down to Dalkeith, across to Mosman Park and up to City Beach.

Question: Do you support the state government’s plan to merge the seven councils in the western suburbs into one council? A total of 185 responses were received to this question, with 160 respondents answering ‘no’ (86%), 14 answering ‘yes’ (8%), and 11 answering ‘unsure’ (6%).

Question: If yes, why do you support the planned changes? A total of 10 responses were received to this question, with a selection of comments provided below.

Improved efficiency with a large council over several smaller ones ‘Consolidation of western suburbs councils will produce cost and resource efficiencies.’

Consistency across the seven councils ‘Consistency in planning, less nepotism and cronyism and better integrated outcomes for the western suburbs.’

There are too many small local councils ‘Efficiency in government. You don’t need seven mayors for an area that small.’

‘Some of the Councils are very small and the number of Councils in the western suburbs seems to be based on historical reasons without any evaluation of the efficiency of this model.’

Dissatisfaction with current council ‘Because it will bring about efficiencies, but more because we will get a more balanced and strategically aware Council. It’s all just too NIMBY focussed with the current arrangement. With a bigger pool of skilled candidates, we get better qualified elected members than we have at present.’

Page 3 ‘The current council is myopic, inefficient and unwilling to embrace change. While there is no guarantee that an expanded council would be any better, I do not think it could be much worse than the current situation.’

‘I feel that Councillors have their own agendas and don’t listen to all of the community.’

Question: If no, why do you oppose the planned changes? A total of 145 responses were received, with a selection of comments provided below.

Losing proper representation and a council that understands the local area ‘I am happy with Subiaco council, I feel we need a local voice.’

‘I like to be represented at a Local Government level by councillors and a Mayor that understand the community where I live and know where my street is. I have this in Subiaco.’

‘Currently we know our councillors and they know us and our issues. Subiaco is so special. Let’s keep it that way.’

‘Elected Members of mega-councils would not be as accessible to residents and ratepayers.’

‘Smaller councils understand what is happening in their community. With smaller councils your councillor is someone you see on the streets or at local events, not just someone on a website.’

‘Our representation will be watered down, potentially to the extent that people will have no representation to speak of at a local level, along with an increased ability for others outside our community and in the state government to say how things should be in our community rather than we ourselves.’

Bigger does not mean better, the area will be too big to handle efficiently ‘A council created by the merger of 7 councils is too large; residents are left with little representation on council and as amenities vary greatly in these 7 councils a council area like Subiaco would be disadvantaged.’

‘Am not convinced that a bigger council will be better or more economical.’

‘Big organisations are less responsive, and the sense of belonging and responsibility we all share as a community will be lost’.

‘Communities are what makes local councils work. Too big and no one is interested or has ownership. In this case small is best.’

‘I believe that small efficient Councils offer a quality of responsive service that is not available from large bureaucratic institutions.’

‘I feel the large council will not be able to provide the services that we as ratepayers experience now. Larger is not better and it is more personalised and attentive to us as individual ratepayers than if we were just one of many.’

‘Successfully combining the systems of seven organisations seems an impossible task.’

Page 4

Subiaco will lose its identity, the areas are too diverse to merge ‘It will destroy the identity of the communities for no direct benefit and will open local government to party politics, to its detriment.’

‘Quite different councils to be merged. Should merge like councils. Also not convinced that this will benefit ratepayers economically speaking as the data suggests otherwise.’

‘Subiaco has little in common with the other council areas.’

‘Subiaco will lose its village atmosphere. Rates will rise and services diminish.’

‘The 7 Local Governments are very “identity orientated” and as such have little in common other than being human.’

Residents will no longer receive the quality services that council provides ‘Area will be too large and I feel that level of services will drop.’

‘As the council areas already include diverse areas and large populations, making this more diverse and larger will put a strain on services and affect the quality of service provided.’

‘Less personal attention to planning issues.’

‘Prefer rates to be used for Subiaco purposes.’

‘Subiaco operates well, responds to residents, businesses, is financially sound. The quality of services and amenities is better than surrounding councils. Mergers would “dilute” these positive attributes.’

It is fine the way it is, no need to change it ‘Because I am happy with the way that the Subiaco Council is currently run and therefore do not wish for any change.’

‘We are very happy ratepayers. We have never had a problem with the City of Subiaco and we feel that what we pay in rates is fair given the services we receive.’

‘I am happy with the present system and no solid reasons have been given to change.’

‘If I wanted to live in any other suburb I would have moved there. Subiaco council looks after its ratepayers pretty well as it is.’

‘Subiaco is a vibrant, well managed, efficient council. Its councillors are locals, and all very approachable and have Subiaco residents’ interests at heart. In summary, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’

There is no convincing evidence of the benefits ‘Because we’re happy with our current council arrangements and we believe that amalgamation will cost more. Ratepayers will bear the brunt of that cost. To date, the state government has not articulated the value proposition behind the mergers.’

Page 5

‘I cannot see any benefit in the merger and can only think of the negative impact.’

‘I would like Subiaco to remain an independent council. I can see no benefit in merging with 1 or 6 other councils.’

‘It is an arbitrary decision by the state government and the only beneficiaries will be developers. There are no demonstrable advantages to rate payers.’

‘The State Government’s proposal has not been backed by any evidence based research demonstrating that larger local government areas result in better outcomes in financial or social terms for existing ratepayers.’

Proposed boundary changes for an extended City of Under changes proposed by the state government, a number of properties in Nedlands and Crawley will become part of the , which will be extended to include the whole of the , including Leederville and Northbridge.

Question: Do you support the state government’s plan for part of the City of Subiaco in Crawley and Nedlands to become part of an extended City of Perth? A total of 185 responses were received to this question, with 130 respondents answering ‘no’ (70%), 32 answering ‘yes’ (17%) and 23 answering ‘unsure’ (13%).

Alternative models The City of Subiaco’s councillors are considering some alternative models.

Question: Would you support a merger between the whole of the City of Subiaco and the City of Perth? A total of 185 responses were received, with 118 respondents answering ‘no’ (64%), 50 answering ‘yes’ (27%), and 17 answering ‘unsure’ (9%).

Page 6

Question: Would you support a merger between the whole of the City of Subiaco and the , which includes City Beach, Floreat, Wembley and West Leederville? A total of 185 responses were received for this question, with 131 respondents answering ‘no’ (71%), 29 answering ‘yes’ (16%), and 25 answering ‘unsure’ (13%).

Question: Out of the following options, which one would you MOSTLY prefer for the whole of the City of Subiaco? A total of 185 responses were received to this question, with 134 respondents answering ‘to remain independent’ (72%), 31 answering ‘to merge with the City of Perth’ (17%), 13 answering ‘to merge with the Town of Cambridge’ (7%), 7 responding ‘be part of a merger between all seven councils in the western suburbs’ (4%), and zero respondents answering ‘unsure’.

Page 7

Demographic information The last few questions will help the city to classify responses, which will remain anonymous.

Question: What is your gender? A total of 185 responses were received to this question, with 94 respondents choosing ‘male’ (51%), 88 choosing ‘female’ (47%), and 3 choosing ‘prefer not to answer’ (2%).

Question: Which age group are you in? A total of 185 responses were received to this question, with 115 respondents answering ‘55+ years’ (62%), 47 answering ‘35 – 54 years’ (26%), 17 answering ’18 – 34 years’ (9%), and 6 answering ‘prefer not to answer’ (3%).

Page 8

Question: Are you an Australian citizen? There were a total of 185 responses to this question, with 178 respondents answering ‘yes’ (96%), 5 answering ‘no’ (3%), 1 answering ‘unsure’ (0.5%) and 1 answering ‘prefer not to answer’ (0.5%).

Question: Do you [do one or more of the following options]? A total of 185 responses were received to this question, with: • 144 answering that they ‘own residential property in the City of Subiaco’ (78%) • 106 answering ‘live in the City of Subiaco’ (57%) • 38 answering ‘work in the City of Subiaco’ (21%) • 19 answering ‘own or manage a business in the City of Subiaco’ (10%) • 16 answering ‘own commercial property in the City of Subiaco’ (9%) • 3 answering ‘none of the above’ (2%) • zero answering ‘unsure’

Note, respondents could choose more than one answer.

Page 9

Question: Which suburb is your home located in? There were a total of 185 responses received to this question, with: • 73 answering ‘Subiaco’ (40%) • 58 answering ‘Shenton Park’ (31%) • 25 answering ‘none of the above’ (14%) • 11 answering ‘Daglish’ (6%) • 8 answering ‘Jolimont’ (4%) • 6 answering ‘Nedlands’ (3%) • 4 answering ‘Crawley’ (2%)

Page 10 Question: Which suburb is your business/workplace located in? A total of 185 responses were received for this question, with: • 108 respondents answering ‘none of the above’ (58%) • 42 answering ‘Subiaco’ (23%) • 17 answering ‘Shenton Park’ (9%) • 7 answering ‘Nedlands’ (4%) • 5 answering ‘Jolimont’ (3%) • 3 answering ‘Daglish’ (2%) • 3 answering ‘Crawley’ (1%)

Other comments The opportunity to provide general (open) comments was available in the modified online community survey.

Question: Do you have any other comments regarding local government structural reform? A total of 107 responses were received to this question. Many expressed clear opposition to any potential local government amalgamations, while a small number were in support. Others contained observations and comments relating to local government, state government and local government reform.

These responses are provided verbatim in Appendix 1.

Page 11 Appendix 1

Question: Do you have any other comments regarding local government structural reform?

Do you have any other comments regarding local government structural reform? 1. Subiaco has done a very good job for its local community which you only appreciate when it is about to be lost. 2. I doubt that the large merger would support the environmental issues that interest me. 3. I don't want the Dadour amendment to be abolished.

Amalgamation is an excellent opportunity for the removal of small councils that are plagued by councillors with vested interests, not necessarily in the interest of rate payers. An unnecessary expense. I want someone looking after me at the specific local level. I would rather have a Federal and Local Council government only. If we need to reduce Government do away with the State Government instead.

Changing the structure of local government does not support the community or state government and the money could be more wisely invested Each of the seven local government has its own character. Those developed over the last century or so but in harmony with each other but not in stark contrast. With the current system of local government those characters will remain as the councillors will safeguard it. With a super council, and we have not been told of the manner those councillors will be elected, those character will be eroded. How will a councillor living in Cambridge make well considered comments on a development in Mosman Park? Even though alot of people do not cope with change, it does need to happen, but amalgamations should not be too large in that local community feel is lost due to size. Evidence from around the world including other parts of Australia indicate that these exercises in gigantism rarely succeed and often have to be deconstructed at considerable expense. FIGHT AGAINST IT WITH ALL OF YOUR MIGHT. UNITE WITH OTHER COUNCILS WHERE POSSIBLE. UPHOLD THE DADORE AMENDMENT. First choice; remain independent. Second choice; merge with 7 western suburbs Least favoured: merge with City of Perth. Survey would have been good to be able to express preferences with 1st, 2nd, 3rd options etc. Firstly it is broken promise on the part of the government that no council would be forced to merge with any other. I support the Dadour amendment and hope that the Barnett government is prevented at all costs from abandoning it. Mr Barnett is acting like a true dictator and selling out to the developers and consultants. As he has done already with ruining our lovely river front for the so called Elizabeth Quay. Across WA and indeed all of Australia it has already been proved that mergers are EXPENSIVE, DO NOT PROVIDE BETTER SERVICES, AND ARE DEFINITELY NOT LIKED BY THE RESIDENTS AND RATEPAYERS AS IN ALL CASES RATES HAVE RISEN ASTRONOMICALLY FOR NO BENEFIT WHATSOEVER.

1

From all that I have read and heard, I cannot understand what benefits there will be to merging councils. Subiaco is a wonderful place to live where I feel that locals can be heard. I fear that in a 'super' council there will be nothing super for residents. We will have further to go to our council, our local identity will be lost, and our concerns won't matter when compared to the impetus to develop, our amenities/services will be rationalised because no big council is going to tailor services the way our local council can. With one big council I fear that residents will be disregarded and in turn become disenfranchised - and that doesn't add up to a great place to live. I also have not heard of any council amalgamations where rates have gone down. Subiaco has so much to lose - its unique history, identity, good financial position - we don't want it. From experience in Queensland (where my family lives) there are moves now to revert to the original structures as mergers are not working. Get on with it Give us a vote! Hooray for Subiaco's opposition to these ridiculous ideas. Ridiculous because not costed and (as shown by experience elsewhere) they don't work. Horrified that the premier can be so blatantly dishonest in pre-election statements that local government change would not be forced upon the communities involved.

Stunned that the state government would consider dis-empowering the local communities by proposing changes to the Dadour Amendment. I am deeply worried about the procedure, which is imposing a model unto population without due process, and with limited or no backing information. It is sort of 'trust us it will be great'. I do not trust this Government because it has broken so many promises, and has snuck upon us the likes of DAP and LGAB, where the government-appointed members enforce government's agenda and decide upon our destiny without us even knowing what is being done, let alone having any input, as we are entitled by the current laws. Governments should serve the electorate, not the other way round. In a democracy things should be transparent, and it looks the amalgamation is being forced upon us to avoid the transparency of the future happenings in the communities by limiting access to the power exercising centres. I believe that the approach to reform has been flawed and misguided from the outset I disagree with it totally. The western suburbs are all unique and should remain unique, by and large the councils do a good job, and can respond to problems with a view to maintaining local ambience and amenities. The State Government is a law unto itself and I fear large councils will be the same and become faceless entities with their minds on the dollars to be made developing any land they can get their hands on and we will all be the poorer for it. The bigger the councils are, the harder it will be to fight them. I would also like to say that I feel that we no longer live in a democracy here in and the State Government is forcing this through without the people involved having a say. I hate these bullying tactics. I can't believe it can happen here. I do not believe that any developers should be members of a Council. Plus I believe that any developer wishing to build a construction should have to prove CONVINCINGLY it's benefit to the community and not contribute to it's destruction. I am not against development BUT 16-19 stories is just ludicrous! I do not regard amalgamations as reform. It suits us as it is, and it should remain mainly residential and the character of Subiaco should remain. Hopefully I won't be around to see it all ruined and destroyed and lose its village atmosphere. P.S. Sorry about my dreadful writing, I hope you can read it. B. Hurst, 3 Finlayson Street, Subiaco, 9381 8117.

I don't want to amalgamate however if we are forced to, we need to stay vibrant, progressive but still retain heritage. I feel City of Perth meets our needs best.

2

I have followed the Department of Local Government's bulletins. They seemed to contain only propaganda, with no evidence in support of its proposed mergers. Inquiries of the Office resulted in prevarication and changes to reasons for forcing mergers. Analysis of the Report given as support for the government's proposal shows nothing to justify the waste of expected costs of mergings.

I have not been able to understand nor find out any reason or justification for the State Government's merger plan. It certainly will not benefit the local residents and seem to be for the benefit of the developers and Property Council. If pushed through the Government will provide the death knell for local government and ruin the local communities. It is an ill-conceived idea, short sighted and irrational. I hope the wider community of all councils are to be engaged for their opinions. I prefer Subiaco to remain independent but if we HAD to amalgamate I would more likely favour amalgamating with West Leederville and Churchlands because the land the Benedictine Monks held included the land in West Leederville and Churchlands (hence Churchlands got it's name) (The land of the Church) If that meant including Wembley etc that would be okay...but the name should stay as SUBIACO and the history should remain a focus for the amalgamations

I really would prefer no merger at all. If one is forced on us, & it shouldn't be if we live in a democracy which I am beginning to wonder about, a smaller merger would be preferable. But we are nothing like the City of Perth, or Cambridge. More like Cambridge I guess if anything. Please continue to fight this merger proposal. I am just hoping Barnett Govt will self destruct & it will all go away.

I see no reason to interfere with the current scheme which allows for checks and balances. I think Colin Barnett should be forced to abide by his pre election assurances and stop forcing our local government authorities to waste so much time and our money on amalgamations which no-one except him seems to want.

I think it is being misnamed 'reform', as this implies an improvement. I think it makes sense to merge the Western Suburbs councils into one. I think Subiaco Council needs to fight any merger proposal as it has shown it can be an efficient and effective council. The programmes and facilities provided by the Council are excellent, for example its green waste collection provides residents with the ability to depose of green waste at any time rather than have it built up on their properties which may encourage vermin. The street scape of trees, paths and parks make the city a pleasant place to live; the financial management of the council appears to be sound with its purchase of property within the council area. Subiaco is a successful council and should be permitted to continue its long history of local government for the area as an independent council not shackled with other poorly performing councils. I think the review carried out to make the case for structural reform was totally inadequate and not based on reliable facts and figures; rather it was designed to comply with the government's preconceived ideas! I would prefer that Subiaco remains independent. However, if a merger of some kind is absolutely required I would probably prefer it to be with the Town of Cambridge due to geographical closeness. I would even consider a merger with Nedlands, but no further afield.

I would support the City of Subiaco if the city were to sue the state government and/or local government association (etc, as pertinent) if it comes to that so as to remain independent and not have land taken from the City of Subiaco or its assets stripped or if the state government tries to disband the council of the City of Subiaco and replace it with a commissioner or commissioners. Again, I am opposed to forced amalgamations or for the City of Perth or any other town or city or the state government to dictate to the City of Subiaco or go after its land or take its assets.

3

If it works don't try to change it. Important to continue/pursue cooperative arrangements between LGAs, such as for waste management. In any merger we would think it important that existing rates that have been squirreled away for a rainy day, are spent on enhancing amenity in the City prior to the merger proceeding. We have been promised underground power but this seems to have been delayed. Footpaths, lighting and drainage are also problems which remain to be addressed in the very much forgotten south ward.

In my opinion, amalgamations should only take place between councils whose residents approve, forced amalgamations are undemocratic and should not happen Increased cooperation with respect to shared facilities can be done without merging local councils. Is the cost of this exercise to be borne by the ratepayers or Government. It is an unnecessary imposition on all citizens of the western suburbs, an unwanted and expensive distraction to getting on with the business of making Subiaco a great place, which is what the Subiaco Council is good at. The death of Subiaco must be strongly resisted at all stages, through the courts if at all possible. I would be pleased to see my rates expended on such a challenge.

It is assumed the reform is based on the State Government's long term development aspirations, which the smaller LA's will stymie. While way more extreme. Ceau攙 捳攙攙 攙攙攙攙攙攙攙攙攙 攙 攙 aspirations 'towards a better future' despite the wishes of the people who ended up living in huge apartment blocks where there farms had once been

It may make some sense to amalgamate some very small shires, but not city sized LAs who are currently operating effectively. "If it ain't broke Don't fix it" Just leave the City of Subiaco as is it for the ratepayers of Subiaco. NO Merger wanted. Larger councils have proved unworkable, eg. Queensland. Leave local councils to decide what they want to do. Do not force people to do what they clearly do not want to do. Leave Subiaco as it is! Leave Subiaco as it is! leave us alone barnett Let us at least have vote on as Dadour provided. LISTEN TO THE RATE PAYERS.

The government has shown over and over the ineptitude in their decisions. Leaving WA below a triple A rating. Their expenditures are in the wrong areas.

A very disappointing leadership. Local government is there to support the needs of local residents. Local councillors are obliged to put the best interest of the residents they represent first. They are elected not because they represent a political party, but because their vision for the future of the constituency they represent matches those of its residents. We trust out local councillors to do what is best for Subiaco because they are locals, we know them. This connection between residents and councillors is lost when mega councils are formed. Outside interests, eg the developers lobby hard and their wants are inevitably put before those of residents. The State government has produced no valid data to prove that mega councils will be more efficient. The Robson report is a a fallacy because of its presumption that councils would be merging. If this government's agenda had genuinely not already been decided, then the terms of reference would have been ' is merging of councils a good idea, or is the existing local government

4 structure working ok?' In summary it the residents who must decide what structure local government takes in this state, the State government has no legal right to force through their proposed changes, and the councils must step up and fight this, in the Supreme Court if necessary, to protect the democratic rights of their residents. Local government structural reform (as it stands) shows a complete disregard for the third tier of government (local authorities) and in doing so, strips away democratic rights at both a local and state level. Mega councils will be an unmitigated failure as is evidenced by the research of University of New England Professor Brian Dollery (please see my earlier comments on the aforementioned).

Colin Barnett has not researched the pitfalls of amalgamations. He made an election promise that he would not force amalgamations on the people of Perth and he has reneged on his word. It is not democratic and his autocratic ruling on this issue makes a mockery of our basic rights. Apart from the crippling financial costs involved in amalgamating, mega-councils will make it almost impossible for grass roots local representation thus reducing our already eroded rights (for example, the authoritarian property developer mentality of DAPS). In the process, this also reduces community access to decision makers and the opportunity to engage and contribute to plans and policy making decisions. To be more specific, the City of Subiaco has already lost so much which made it unique and this will be the final nail in the coffin. move forward not backwards My absolute first preference is for the whole city of Subiaco to remain independent.

However the city has a special identity that is NOT limited to the CBD - we cannot afford to allow part of ourselves to be removed - as is being recommended by the State Government. If a merger is unavoidable, and if Council decides that it would be in the interests of the WHOLE of Subiaco to merge with Perth, then I would support that decision. My first preference would really be for the Subiaco Council to remain independent. However, since this wish may not be realistic in the current climate, my second preference would definitely be for a merge with the City of Cambridge.

No No action should be taken until a free, open and public consultation process is undertaken. No advantages have been demonstrated. I believe small local councils serve residents better No change! Promised benefits need to be clearly explained. Existing financial surplus should be returned to ratepayers or quarantined from the other merger partners. Requests of the Office for change in LG refused to provide support and evidence for amalgamations, and changed its reasons when the Robson reasons were shown to be specious. This therefore seems like propaganda rather than information.

Resist it with everything you have. For Mr Barnett to suggest that he is doing it to save us money or to better efficiency is patronising and offensive. I find the whole thing vile. Should an amalgamation happen, there should be a transparent report on benefits such as cost, resource distribution etc to inform the ratepayers. Should the government proceed with the G7 proposal I would hope that the council/s is prepared to challenge the decision in the courts. Legal opinion from an eminent lawyer [McLeod] would appear to indicate the council/s position is strong as a defendant.

5

Since my area of Hollywood wasn't even mentioned in the suburb choices I feel we might as well join City of Perth Since Subiaco is functioning well and demonstrating sound governance there is no reason for it to change - or to be changed. Should a merger be forced upon the City it should be recognised that, like Vincent, Subiaco is largely an inner city area, with multiple small businesses and relatively small residential blocks. It has little in common with Cambridge or with Nedlands. Should a merger be unavoidable, I would greatly enjoy seeing Lisa Scaffidi out numbered by John Dean and Heather Henderson. Re the final question. Since I am retired I have neither business nor workplace.

Strong desire to remain independent with the benefits of having a Local Council focussed on Local issues. Subiaco is far behind in it's town planning scheme that joining with the City makes sense if not only to same time in updating the scheme. Subiaco is unique. It has been a city for many years. Subiaco should stay the same, i.e. residential housing, not apartments. Tell Colin Barnet to butt out! Thank you for the opportunity to have my say. The Barnett Government needs to be firmly informed that this is NOT ON. They say they will not force amalgamations if they are not wanted and yet look what they are doing. Research shows that everywhere this has been attempted it has failed to show any benefits to the community and has been a disaster. Rates have increased and service has decreased. This is not what the people want or need. Why are they pushing this so hard? One really wonders!

The behaviour of the liberal government in forcing such change on western suburbs is more reminiscent of a labor government. The City of Perth attempt to acquire UWA and QE11( both Rate free properties) is really only about UWA wanting to increase its Statutory footprint beyond the 53 hectares it leased for 999 years, or whatever, years ago. The UWA has had several attempts to buy up Crawley properties, change the TPS , force property holders out, without success,. They have been able to attempt this now because Robson ( of the Robson Panel fame) was their last Vice Chancellor and his interest is perceived to be conflicted.

6

The City of Subiaco is a wealth, financially secure and stable local government that meets the needs of its ratepayers. Mergers with other councils will make the council weaker not stronger. The councils can try to work together to share assets and resources where it is all applicable council's interests. Often the strength of local government comes from the shared sense of place and community. This is lost as councils get bigger.

Specifically, a merger with Cambridge is a bad idea as Cambridge is appearing to embark on a capital expenditure program that appears to be funded by debts. http://www.cambridge.wa.gov.au/files/8dd5c2c0-80bb-409f-a879- a25800fcf07f/AU13_6_Annual_Financial_Report_for_Year_Ended_30_June_2013.pdf?streamFile=true

From 2012/13 Annual financial report. Commitment for Capital expenditure: page 39

Commitment for Capital Expenditure

The Town is currently involved in the following major capital projects for 2013/2014: - Design and the development of the City Beach surf clubrooms and commercial facilities at a cost of $14.4 million. - Design and development of the hospitality facilities at the Wembley Golf Course at a cost of $8.5 million. - Upgrade of the Bold Park Aquatic Centre at a cost of $6 million. - Design and development of the Wembley Golf Course - miniature golf at a cost of $1.3 million. - Cambridge Street - West Leederville Street enhancement road works at a cost of $2 million. The council and ratepayers should not be considering anything the state government is proposing. By even discussing these options we are playing into these autocrats hands. The state government and their functionaries are no more than a bunch of fascists.

The Council should institute a program of deliberate non-compliance with the State Government and obstruct its moves at every step. Don't ever be open to the accusation of having assisted these moves in any way. The whole blame for the mess which will follow must be sheeted home to Colin Barnett and his mobsters. The mergers proposed will inevitably be expensive to carry out, with no clear evidence that long term savings will be produced. There is also a significant risk that what we get will be a new set of local governments with "lowest common denominator" services i.e. the "cheapest option" for each service in an attempt to produce saving. At best, we will wind up with a new council which costs no more than previously, but has significantly degraded services. The Government needs to produce clear evidence that the process will either produce very significant savings or much enhanced services. All we have heard from the Barnett government is the old "economies of scale" argument without clear documentation of the real savings. This does not take into account the good cooperation between many councils that are already producing significant savings.

7

The most vocal opponents to council mergers have been the councils themselves as members will lose their positions Worse still, the arguments put forward boil down to instilling a fear of change among residents - nothing will be like it is, the sky will fall in, rubbish will fill the streets. The idealist in me likes the image of a small local council working efficiently, rationally and with initiative to represent its constituents, however the reality is far from this. Development is a dirty word, the good and the bad summarily rejected. Heritage buildings decay as owners are saddled with increasingly onerous 'guidelines' for their renovation, adaptation or alteration. In a few short years Subiaco Oval will be mothballed, the sad result of a council that refused to budge on its position until too late. Forced amalgamations look to be heading in the same direction. By refusing to engage in dialogue the council is now struggling to remain in existence. Meanwhile shops are empty and businesses close almost daily, unable to remain viable without passing trade. Parking is a nightmare, yet, unlike Vincent, the Subiaco council is unable to strike a deal to extend CAT buses into the suburb or come up with other initiatives to bring people into the suburb. The option of splitting up the between Subiaco, Claremont, Cambridge, and possibly Cottesloe, is worth considering. Under this option, Subiaco would take over the "Hollywood" part of Nedlands. The State Government (ie the Premier) has stated quite clearly that Councils will not be forced into amalgamations. He should be held to his word and the Council should not be frightened into agreeing with any amalgamation that they do not believe is in the best interest of Subiaco and its rate-payers. The state government is trying to force through these reforms against the wishes of the majority of residents, despite their pre-election promises not to do so. Local government represents residents and their interests, the state government has no right to change its structure.

The state government is wasting rate and tax payers for his personal gain. The State Government must provide uncontestable proof that mergers will provide services equal to what is provided currently and at a cost in rates less than those that prevail at present. The Subiaco Council appears to lack long term vision for the benefit of maintaining good businesses in the area. Current policies appear to hinder business, not help it. A good example is the non-action about parking problems. It is all talk and no action. It needs fresh input from the wisdom of City of Perth. The Subiaco Council has been prepared to listen to ratepayers' protests in the past and change some decisions for the better (eg not heritage listing the whole suburb and not selling off part of Rosalie Park. A bigger council would be less responsive to local issues. Also the green collection with GPS is the best I have ever heard of and I don't believe that would be retained.

The traditional definition of "reform" is to take something apart and put it back together. That is all that is being proposed. There has been no thought given to improvements. No thought of costs - monetary or social. In fact, no thought given to anything at all. The emperor has spoken. No argument on his side is required. No argument on ours is tolerated. Long live democracy.

The word reform is misused. There is not a proven need to reform. Subiaco is effective and efficient. It is also listens to its ratepayers and residents.

The so-called reform is merely a reorganisation so that developers can maximise city land and not be concerned with residential amenity issues. There are many studies conducted by academics that have shown the costs rise and services deteriorate when councils are merged. This whole move seems to be to make it easier for property developers to gain approvals for higher density property developments in inner city suburbs. Colin Barnett's Government seems to concentrate on projects that favour construction companies and landmark projects that do not solve problems in health, education and other social problems in WA.

8

There has been absolutely no financial information about the benefits of mergers -and socially and community wise it is a totally destructive idea. We are aware of mergers in other states and the and they have been destructive to community -it is timer we began to consider and preserve human capital. This subject has become not only an issue of residents fighting for the right to keep the character and function of their municipality in their own hands through their elected reps, but finding themselves opposed, threatened and railroaded by high handed, arrogant, authoritarian and frankly bullying tactics of none other than a government and political party bent on gaining huge financial spoils at the cost of the sanity and security of residents. I am now alienated from the present party and cohort in power. Unwarranted. We are at a cross roads!!!!!! Stay SUBIACO as an independent council, working for and representing the RATE PAYERS. We are so sad to see this silly idea of amalgamating all the councils. Just one further thought - Subiaco has very substantial financial assets. Is there any point collecting rates for the next couple of years, as it just makes us a more attractive target. Why not stop collecting rates, and lessen our appeal to other councils? A rate holiday would be very popular with property owners.

We elected the Council and therefore it has our authority to act to defend our interests. The Council should have acted sooner to make clear that what matters is the views of residents not the State Government. Doing this survey so late in this public debate is a serious failure by the council.

We have a fantastic local council, please do not merge. We moved to Subiaco three years ago from Brisbane where there is a large Brisbane City Council. We prefer our current arrangements to the larger, impersonal style of council. We need to keep the village atmosphere and the personal nature of our city of subiaco. Too big and it becomes impersonal. We wish to be progressive, rather than as has been the case, regressive in Subiaco. We don’t share the current Council's overtly conservative views (on everything) When I was GM of an organisation with almost 2000 staff, there was constant analysis of our structure to achieve the best results, so I have some experience of proposed reorganisations. No report that I have read on the proposed council mergers shows any financial or customer service benefit to be gained. Where is mention of the Act? Why not a survey on the points of concern of the Dadour Group? Why is this interest too little, too late? Why weren't the Mayors interested earlier? Local governments prevail over the State NOT the other way around, although Mr Barnett likes to bluff you to think otherwise. Do not relinquish power to the state. Often it is ONLY at the local level that community interests can override the greedy few. Where is mention of the DAPs in this survey? Why not ask if we support stacking of these committees by vested interests? How much did this inadequate survey cost us? What do you intend to do with the data? N.B. This limited/hasty survey is not a referendum vote.

Will lead to loss of local community. Subi Council does well to be the hub of the Subi community. Getting bigger and blending with other communities will weaken that. We've lost our local police station, infant health service, our oval - all gradual steps in weakening community services available at hand. There is no evidence to suggest cost savings, and even if there were, community is more important. STAY STRONG SUBI and fight for our INDEPENDENCE. I see this as being about state government fighting for greater control over local councils. It's WRONG and should NOT happen. Yes, but I'm too polite to voice them.

9