Reform Timeline

MYTH: Local Government in WA doesn't want reform.: Local Government has been driving the reform process, starting it five years ago when it requested that WALGA investigate the long-term sustainability of the sector. Since then, Local Governments have been working to improve their sustainability, including measures like amalgamations and resource sharing. As recently as September 2008, Local Government in WA voted overwhelmingly to support and participate in the Systemic Sustainability Study reform plan developed by WALGA. This plan is now being progressively implemented.
MYTH: Bigger Local Government is better.: There is no evidence that economies of scale always result from a larger Local Government structure. Indeed, due to the different needs of communities, there are instances where smaller, more localised service models are more efficient, especially in remote areas. Equally, there are examples where high-density population bases are better served by one, larger operation. Professor Brian Dollery (University of New England Centre for Local Government) recently said that most services by Local Governments, especially in human services, demonstrated 'diseconomies of scale': they would not be improved by amalgamation.
MYTH: Better Local Government results from improved economic performance.: Economic performance is important to the sustainability of Local Government, but it's only part of the equation. Sustainable Local Government also has to consider the environmental and social impacts on the communities affected by reform.
MYTH: Local Government in WA isn't contributing to reform.: It was Local Government that initiated the reform process, undertook extensive research, analysis and consultation to develop a suitable model for reform, and provided much of the expertise and intelligence being adopted by the State Government in its reform process.
MYTH: Reform elsewhere focused successfully on amalgamation.: In recent years, all Australian states except WA have undergone reform of Local Government, and this has significantly reduced the number of Local Governments. However, a report in 2006 by Price WaterhouseCoopers found that the reduction in the number of Local Governments in other states has not produced a system any more sustainable than what currently exists in Western Australia.
MYTH: There has to be one reform model applied to Local Government.: The wide diversity in WA communities is reflected in the structure of the Local Governments established to serve them. A reform model cannot consider one variable, such as total population, while ignoring other critical factors like population density, land area and income base. Just as communities are different, Local Governments are different, and the reform process needs to reflect that. One size does not fit all.
MYTH: Amalgamating unsustainable Local Governments makes them sustainable.: Reform interstate has shown that economic sustainability is not assured by simply combining unviable Local Governments. Bringing together two little problems does not necessarily provide a solution - it can just create one big problem. The same is true for environmental and social sustainability.
MYTH: Amalgamation is the only way to reform Local Government.: Since Local Government in WA began the reform process in 2004, the sector has made significant improvements in efficiencies and service delivery. These have been achieved through amalgamation and a wide variety of other measures. See examples of some of these achievements.
MYTH: Reform based on forced amalgamations is successful.: Experience interstate demonstrates that, even on purely economic considerations, simple amalgamations of Local Governments have not resulted in long-term sustainability. For example, in South Australia, the number of Local Governments was reduced from 118 to 68, but when these new Local Governments were tested against a sustainability checklist 33 of them - almost 50% - were found to be unsustainable.
MYTH: WALGA's process was taking too long to be implemented.: The Systemic Sustainability Study developed by WALGA at the request of Local Government involved a four-year process of research, analysis and consultation. Its goal was to develop a reform model that was both based in fact and supported by the people who would have to implement its recommendations.

Criticising the length of time taken to develop the SSS implies that it's better to act on 'best guess' assumptions and to ignore the community's preferences. And criticising the time taken to implement the SSS recommendations, when Local Government had less than six months before the State Government announced its process, creates a deliberately false perception in the community.
MYTH: Local Government plans to take 10 years to progress reform.: It's true that the Systemic Sustainability Study initially set out a 10-year plan for reform, but this was a staged process with the majority of reform in the first three years. Also, significant reform has been undertaken by Local Government in WA during the development of the SSS plan in response to research in the early stages of the process. Since the sector started driving reform in 2004, there has been increased resource-sharing and cooperation between Local Governments to improve efficiencies, six Local Governments have amalgamated and dozens of others have been discussing mergers. The goal is to create sustainable improvement.
MYTH: Local Governments are to blame for their resources being over-stretched.: Local Government often comes under criticism for increasing rates and charges for services. However, little attention is given to the increasing number of services now provided by Local Governments that were previously provided by State or Federal governments. It's an easy way to improve efficiencies in State and Federal government: get Local Governments to provide their services without providing additional funding. For example, when the previous State Government decided to change food labelling laws and smoking requirements in alfresco restaurants, Local Government was charged with policing the new legislation - without additional funding for staff. Also, Local Governments in regional areas often have to provide funding to ensure their communities have health services, which are actually a State and Federal Government responsibility.
MYTH: Reforming Local Government won't further burden taxpayers.: The amalgamation of Local Governments will require considerable extra expense, including costs associated with reorganisation of corporate structures, redundancies and the implemention of new operating procedures. University of New England Centre for Local Government Professor Brian Dollery wrote recently in The West Australian that "experience in other states has demonstrated amalgamation is expensive to implement and typically robs small communities of effective representation".
MYTH: Western Australians want Local Government amalgamations.: Recent state wide independent research has demonstrated that most WA people are opposed to the State Government forcing Local Governments to amalgamate and would prefer other alternatives examined to deliver greater efficiencies. Commissioned by WALGA, the survey of 1250 people from across the State found that 63% of people surveyed thought that the State Government should not force Councils to amalgamate, while 74% believed that the process should consider alternatives to amalgamations of Councils. Overwhelmingly (83%), people wanted to have a vote on any amalgamation proposed for their Local Government.
MYTH: Communities won't lose their say in bigger, amalgamated councils.: The Systemic Sustainability Study recognised a genuine risk that communities could lose their voice with the wholesale amalgamation of Local Governments into bigger organisations. So, the SSS reform plan proposed a model incorporating regional cooperation between Local Governments to deliver services to communities, along with the retention of local representation to ensure even the smallest community has a voice on its Council. The State Government reform model proposes increasing the size of Local Governments through amalgamations while also reducing the number of Elected Members to represent ratepayers (to no more than nine per council). The result will be fewer councillors per head of population and therefore reduced representation of the interests of individuals and small groups.