The " People " have spoken !

We are proud of the fact that we live in a " Democracy " but it seems exactly what that means is widely differently interpreted by many people.   The fact that who occupies the Treasury benches in parliament depends on a popular vote at election time seems to signify that the will of the people is decisive, but this can have a completely different outlook at local government, state and Federal level.

It is not unusual to have a different political party in power in Canberra and its opposition regime delivering government in a state capital.  Within each state councils of various political persuasions rule over the local affairs of the suburbs contained within their boundaries.  Each group can claim to be expressing the " will of the people " because they won office by popular vote..

Of course, that not how the system works.  Because of party politics the aim of each political party is declared in its manifesto, but that is a long term aim.  Most decisions are made with the aim of holding office at the next election.  The degree of opposition to the proposed measure has a greater bearing on how the party members vote.

We have just seen the New South Wales state government retreat on the question of forcing the amalgamation of councils to achieve economy of scale.  Two centuries ago what are now Sydney suburbs were originally villages that needed infrastructure to manage village life.   The local council was responsible for providing somewhere for residents to tip their rubbish, collect the " night soil " before sewers were connected and general keep the streets neat and tidy.  Getting elected to council was a convenient way of going on to higher office.

Today, many of those councils are facing bankruptcy.  The role of councils has changed and they face greater outlays and most have a greater amount of  need  far beyond their financial capacity. The only answer was amalgamation  to spread the financial load over a wider base and gain the benefit of pooling expensive machinery.  That offered the only hope of eliminating a huge backlog of unfunded work and keeping rates within residents ability to pay.

Public reaction was surprisingly hostile.   Huge numbers of people took to the streets in noisy demonstrations and attended public meetings.  There was fear that amalgamation would dilute local decision making and that council funds would be concentrated on renewal and expansion areas.  It quickly became evident that to continue pursuing amalgamation would put the longevity of the state government at risk.

Those mergers already in place will remain, but no further amalgamations will be forced.   The will of the people appears to have been decisive - but it will come at a cost.  Many smaller councils will continue to accumulate a backlog of urgent work that remains unaffordable and it is likely that some will eventually be unable to pay their bills.  If a council is forced into the bankruptcy court, the interesting question is who will pick up the pieces -   and what will be done to rescue the ratepayers from lack of services ?

And most interesting of all.   Who will shoulder the blame for that fiasco ?