Crossing Boundaries: Local government amalgamations and intercommunity relations in Buloke Shire Damon Alexander School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Melbourne Email: dta@unimelb.edu.au Abstract: The Kennett government s local government reforms introduced throughout the mid-1990s radically altered the face, institutional form and structure of local government in Victoria. Council amalgamations saw a reduction in council numbers from 210 before the reform process to just 78 by January 1995 (Worthington and Dollery 2002: 505). In rural areas, where local government boundaries in many cases reflected deeply ingrained notions of communal interest and identity, the forced merger of previously independent and often fiercely parochial councils into larger unified political and administrative units was particularly contentious. Drawing on a survey of 649 residents from the rural Shire of Buloke, this paper examines attitudes towards local government amalgamation 13 years on from the reforms, and explores their influence in shaping inter-community notions of trust and reciprocity. The findings suggest that despite the passage of time, bitterness concerning amalgamations remains palpable across Buloke s communities, with conflict and competition over scarce resources remaining a significant barrier to the development of more positive inter-community relationships. Key words: local government; council amalgamations; rural politics; trust Word count: 2917 (+ notes)
2 Crossing Boundaries: Local government amalgamations and intercommunity relations in Buloke Shire Local government amalgamations are far from a new phenomenon in Australia. As Jones (1993) notes, local authorities and the communities they govern have been fighting state government imposed amalgamation programs since the introduction of local government to the Australian colonies in the 1850s. Indeed, such programs have been so commonplace that amalgamation has been described as the dominant thread which runs through Australian local government history (Vince, 1997: 120). Despite this long history of boundary reforms, few amalgamation programs have been as extensive or politically audacious as that implemented by the Kennett Liberal government in Victoria during the mid 1990s. Under these reforms, forced council amalgamations saw an unprecedented reduction in council numbers from 210 to just 78, with the number of rural shire councils reduced from 149 to just 47 over a two year period (Worthington and Dollery 2002: 505). In rural areas, where council boundaries in many cases, reflected deeply ingrained notions of communal interest and identity, the cuts were particularly damaging. As O Toole and Burdess (2002:1) point out, prior to amalgamation, localised decision-making provided small towns with a degree of autonomy and ownership over their own affairs. At the stroke of a pen, amalgamation removed this longstanding independence and local control as resources were either transferred to larger centres or became subject to new forms of political contestation and competition between newlymerged constituent communities.
3 In Buloke Shire, a small rural Shire in the northwest of Victoria, the tenor of local government and community relations in the post-amalgamation era have been heavily influenced by this inter-community political contestation and rivalry. Initial goodwill between communities reluctantly thrown together by the amalgamation process quickly gave way to mistrust and narrow parochialism in the face of competition over the location of council services and the allocation of scarce council resources. 1 Thirteen years on, this paper examines community perceptions of the impact of amalgamations in Buloke Shire, and explores the extent to which feelings of trust and reciprocity have developed between the communities. The results suggest that bitterness over amalgamations remains palpable across Buloke s communities, with competition over scarce resources and lingering resentment still serving as a barrier to the development of greater levels of intercommunity trust and unity. Buloke Shire Council Buloke Shire is located in north-western Victoria, in the heart of the Wimmera-Mallee s wheat and sheep belt. Formed in January 1995 by the amalgamation of the former Shires of Donald, Birchip, Wycheproof and Charlton, it is the fifth largest municipality in Victoria in terms of area. The bulk of the Shire s population of 6,853 is spread across five main townships ranging in size from 600 to 1700 (ABS 2006a). Donald, the largest with a population of 1697 is located in the south; Charlton, the second largest in the southeast, Wycheproof where the council administration is based, in the mid-east; Birchip in the mid-west; and Sea Lake, with just over 600 residents, in the north. The remainder of the population is dispersed across five smaller towns Nandaly in the far
4 north, Berriwillock, Nullawil and Culgoa in the north east, and Watchem in the centralsouth-west, and more than 60 smaller localities scattered across the Shire. In terms of its socioeconomic profile, the Shire is typical of many local government areas in rural Australia. The population is predominantly Australian-born and older than average the median age of 45 years eight years above the national figure (ABS: 2006a). The local economy is dominated by agriculture which employs a third of the local labour force, the bulk of these in sheep, beef cattle and grain production. Tough times resulting from a decade of severe drought though have wrought significant damage on living standards, with median weekly household income across the Shire sitting on just 60 per cent of the Australian average at $610 (ABS 2006a). Methodology To examine attitudes towards amalgamation and inter-community relationships a 12 page self-completion questionnaire was mailed out to each of the 2,701 households across Buloke Shire throughout October/November 2007. The questionnaire covered a range of topics including community engagement, trust, community group membership patterns, social support networks and attitudes toward local government amalgamations. The section on amalgamation, which is the primary focus of this paper, asked respondents to indicate how much they agreed or disagreed with a series of ten items relating to local government amalgamations and local governance by circling a response on a five point likert scale. Participants were also asked to respond to a series of seven items relating to trust and reciprocity to help gain an understanding of how they relate to and expect to be
5 treated by people in other parts of the Shire and outside of Buloke. A full list of these items is provided in Tables 2 and 3. The overall response rate, as well as response rates per community is detailed in Table 1. As the table shows, a total of 649 responses were received, equating to a response rate of 24 per cent. Rates varied from a high of 33.33 per cent in Nandaly to a low of 17.77 per cent at Sea Lake, with seven of the ten communities recording response rates above 20 per cent. In terms of returns per town, the sample provides a relatively accurate representation of communities across the municipality. Donald is slightly overrepresented (+6 per cent), while Sea Lake is slightly under-represented (-3 per cent). It should be noted though that people aged over 45 years are over-represented in the sample and that young people and men are under-represented. 2 Table 1 about here Results Attitudes towards amalgamation To gauge people s attitudes towards local government amalgamations, and to determine whether there were significant differences in responses between communities across the municipality, data from the ten amalgamation items was used in a series of analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests. Mean scores on each item for the five larger towns are provided in Table 2, with aggregated results for the five smaller centres (Berriwillock, Culgoa, Nandaly, Nullawil and Watchem) also provided under the category of small
6 towns. 3 Scores range from 1 indicating strongly disagree to 5 indicating strongly agree. Nine of the ten amalgamation items showed statistically significant differences across the six communities at the p=<.01 level, the exception being item 2. Looking at the results generally, we can see that despite the passage of more than 10 years, residents across Buloke remain deeply critical of the reforms and their impact on local governance. The results show significant variation in the intensity of attitudes, with respondents from smaller communities and from Sea Lake less critical on most measures than those from the larger population centres. This variation most likely reflects the influence of pre-amalgamation political structures in Buloke s constituent Shires before amalgamation, with residents from Sea Lake and the smaller centres already politically marginalised by the larger towns. 4 Not surprisingly, given the hostility which originally greeted the reform process, the results point to a widespread perception that amalgamations have undermined rather than improved the operation of local government across the Shire. Sea Lake was the only community where respondents agreed that amalgamations have improved the function of local government in Buloke (item 1), with all other communities, and particularly the larger centres of Donald, Wycheproof and Charlton, disagreeing with this statement. There also appears to be a widespread perception that the services provided to local communities were better before amalgamations (item 7). This attitude was again particularly prevalent in the larger centres such as Donald and Wycheproof. Respondents only marginally agreed that amalgamations have undermined the sense of community in
7 their town (item 4), but generally agreed that boundary changes have had a significant impact on their towns. Respondents, by and large, also remain skeptical about the economic justification for local government amalgamations put forward by the Kennett government. The overall mean of 2.29 on item 5 suggests very little support for the contention that amalgamations were necessary to improve the economic efficiency of councils in my area. Again, we can see quite a bit of variation across communities on this item, with respondents in Sea Lake (3.11), and those in small towns (2.76) offering lukewarm Table 2 about here agreement with the statement, while those in Donald (1.87), and to a lesser extent Wycheproof (2.22), strongly disagreeing. On the question of whether or not the old boundaries should be reinstated, the positions are neatly reversed, with the larger centres, again, particularly Donald and Wycheproof, supportive of returning to the status quo. Tellingly, the results also point to a relatively low level of confidence in post amalgamation governance arrangements. There is a strong sense, particularly in the major population centres, that conflicting community interests act as a barrier against cross-community political cooperation, the result being that councillors from different wards rarely cooperate effectively (item 6). There is also only lukewarm confidence in the capacity of ward councillors to effectively represent their constituent s interests on council (item 3). Interestingly, means on this measure were highest in Donald (whose three councillors have generally been a part of a majority alliance since amalgamation)
8 and much lower for Sea Lake, the small centres (both of which generally have no community members on council), and in Charlton (whose two councillors have been part of the losing minority on most contentious issues). 5 Finally, the results suggest that the majority of respondents in all towns believe that other towns in the municipality have done better out of amalgamations than their own community. As Table 2 indicates, this feeling was universal across all towns in the study, but was again particularly strong in the larger southern centres of Charlton (3.71), Wycheproof (3.70) and Donald (3.65). Trust and Reciprocity This section explores how trust and expectations of reciprocal treatment vary across communities in Buloke Shire. Respondents were asked to indicate on a five-point Likert scale the extent to which they agreed or disagreed that people from their own town; from elsewhere in Buloke; and from outside the Shire could be trusted. They were then asked whether they agreed or disagreed that if they treated other people across the same three social settings well, they could expect to be treated well in return. As with the amalgamation section, the six trust and reciprocity items were then used in a series of analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests to determine whether or not there were significant variations in responses across communities in Buloke. Mean scores on each item for the Table 3 about here five larger towns are provided in Table 3, with results for the five smaller centres again
9 aggregated. Scores range from 1 indicating strongly disagree to 5 indicating strongly agree. The results in Table 3 suggest that respondents in Buloke tend to have a relatively high level of trust in people across all three social distances. 6 There is also a widespread expectation that positive behaviour will be reciprocated, particularly by others from the same town, but also by others from elsewhere in Buloke and from outside the Shire. Beneath these general trends though, there are some interesting variations. We can see for example, that while there is a relatively large difference between the levels of trust respondents hold for others from their own town compared to that they hold for people from other parts of Buloke or from outside the Shire, there is a much smaller gap between the latter two categories. That is, in terms of trust, people from elsewhere in Buloke are viewed only marginally more favourably than people from outside the area. This was particularly the case in Charlton, where trust for people outside the Shire was actually higher than for other people across the municipality, and for Wycheproof, where the difference on the mean was just.02. People s sense that if they treat others well they will be treated well in return is also generally strongest where the others are from their own town, except in the small centres, where surprisingly the mean on the more general reciprocity measure is marginally (.03) higher. Interestingly though, there appears to be a greater expectation of reciprocity from others outside the Shire than for others from elsewhere in the Shire. That is, people expect to be treated less favourably by people from other towns in Buloke
10 than by people from outside the Shire. This sentiment is evident in all communities except Donald, and is particularly strong in Sea Lake, Wycheproof and to a lesser extent, in Charlton. This paper set out to examine community attitudes towards council amalgamations in a small rural shire 13 years after the implementation of the Kennett government s local government reform program. The results clearly show that across most communities in Buloke Shire, bitterness concerning the reforms remains palpable. There is a widespread perception that amalgamations have undermined rather than improved the operation of local government across the Shire, and that post-amalgamation governance structures have largely failed to effectively represent and reconcile the disparate interests of Buloke s constituent communities. The results also show that there is a general sense that other communities in Buloke have benefited more from the amalgamation process, and point to a general failure to establish inter-communal bonds of trust and reciprocity based on the new administrative boundaries. This latter failure evident in the fact that feelings of trust and reciprocity are generally no stronger for those from other parts of the Shire than they are for outsiders points to the continuing difficulties posed by smalltown parochialism and inter-community competition over scarce resources in the postamalgamation era.
11 References Anon. Buloke decentralises services, Buloke Times, May 30 1995. Anon. Commissioners explain deployment of services, Buloke Times, June 2 1995. Anon. Donald on the outer, Buloke Times, June 9 1995. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006a) Census of Population and Housing. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006b) General Social Survey: Summary Results Australia. Cat 4159. Jones, Michael (1993) Transforming Australian Local Government: Making it work. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. O Toole, Kevin and Neil Burdess (2002) Governance in rural communities: The case of Victoria. Refereed paper presented at the Australasian Political Studies Association Jubilee conference, Australian National University, Canberra, October 2002 Vince, Anne (1997) Amalgamations, in Dollery Brian and N. A. Marshall (eds), Australian Local Government: Reform and Renewal, Melbourne: Macmillan, pp.151 71. Worthington, Andrew and Brian Dollery (2002) An analysis of recent trends in Australian local government, International Journal of Public Sector Management 15(6):pp. 496-515.
12 Table 1. Survey returns and response rates per community Town/Community# Households Percentage of Returns as Returns Response households in percentage rate (%) Buloke of sample Berriwillock 90 3.33 2.62 17 18.89 Birchip 377 13.96 12.33 80 21.22 Charlton 624 23.10 21.42 139 22.28 Culgoa 57 2.11 1.69 11 19.30 Donald 683 25.29 31.43 204 29.87 Nandaly 27 1.00 1.39 9 33.33 Nullawil 47 1.74 2.31 15 31.91 Sea Lake 287 10.63 7.86 51 17.77 Watchem 94 3.48 2.93 19 20.21 Wycheproof 415 15.36 15.10 98 23.61 Unknown/Unclear na na 0.92 6 na Total 2701 100.00 100.0 649 24.03 #Respondents were asked to nominate the community they lived in or lived closest to.
13 Table 2. Local Government Amalgamation Items: Mean scores per community# Small towns Birchip Charlton Donald Sea Lake Wycheproof Total 1. Council amalgamations have improved the way local government functions in my municipality** 2. Local government amalgamations have benefited other towns in this council more than my own community 3. My ward councillors are effective at presenting the interests of my local community** 4. Local government amalgamations have undermined the sense of community in my town** 5. Local government amalgamations were necessary to improve the economic efficiency of councils in my area** 6. Conflicting community interests means that councillors from different wards rarely cooperate effectively in Buloke** 7. The services provided in my town were better before amalgamations** 8. Local government amalgamations were inevitable and people just need to make the most of arrangements** 9. Local government amalgamations have had little impact on my town** 2.36 1.97 1.74 1.60 2.61 1.62 1.81 3.52 3.25 3.71 3.65 3.43 3.70 3.59 2.98 3.51 3.05 3.69 3.21 3.22 3.35 2.47 3.61 3.32 3.30 3.00 3.00 3.20 2.76 2.33 2.60 1.87 3.11 2.22 2.29 3.61 3.77 3.90 3.97 3.43 4.33 3.90 3.20 3.73 3.69 4.18 3.48 3.90 3.84 2.88 2.51 2.74 2.21 3.06 2.29 2.51 2.89 1.97 2.34 1.96 2.64 2.13 2.20 10.Local government 2.81 3.49 3.16 3.78 2.98 3.59 3.42 boundaries should be returned to those in place before amalgamations** ** Statistically significant at 0.01 level. #For items 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9 the 18.5 per cent of respondents who were not residents of Buloke Shire at the time of amalgamations were excluded from the analysis.
14 Table 3. Trust and sense of community: Mean scores per community Small towns Birchip Charlton Donald Sea Lake Wycheproof Total 1. Most people in this town 3.90 4.12 3.86 4.08 3.94 4.02 4.00 can be trusted* 2. Most people in Buloke 3.65 3.78 3.56 3.73 3.50 3.49 3.64 Shire can be trusted* 3. Most people can be trusted 3.49 3.72 3.58 3.65 3.40 3.47 3.58 4. If it treat most people in 4.10 4.48 4.11 4.39 4.13 4.12 4.25 my town well they will treat me well in return** 5. If I treat most people in 4.06 4.15 3.85 4.06 3.78 3.81 3.96 Buloke Shire well they will treat me well in return** 6. If I treat most people well they will treat me well in return 4.13 4.20 3.95 4.04 4.00 4.03 4.05 *Statistically significant at 0.1 level. ** Statistically significant at 0.01 level.
15 Notes 1 This situation was not helped by the actions of the three original Commissioners appointed at Buloke, whose plan for carving up and allocating council services (and therefore employment opportunities) across Buloke s five major towns, changed almost daily depending upon which community they were addressing. See for example Buloke decentralises services, Buloke Times, May 30 1995; Commissioners explain deployment of services, Buloke Times, June 2 1995; Donald on the outer, Buloke Times, June 9 1995. 2 Men make up 38 per cent of the sample compared to 50 per cent of the entire Buloke population (ABS 2006a). Respondents aged 15-24 years old comprise just one per cent of the sample compared to seven per cent of the population aged 15 years or over. Respondents aged 45 years and over make up 76 per cent of the sample, compared to 65 per cent of the population (ABS 2006a). 3 Initial testing suggested very little variation in responses across the five smaller centres. For this reason, and because of their relatively small number, their results were combined under the one category. 4 Because of their prior dominance, residents from the larger centres of Donald, Charlton, Wycheproof and Birchip arguably experienced a greater sense of diminishing autonomy, representation and local control over services as a result of the amalgamation process Responses to item 9 seem to support this conclusion with respondents in Sea Lake and the smaller communities more likely to agree that amalgamation had had little impact on their towns (See Table 2). 5 The small community of Culgoa is the exception with local farmer Reid Mather serving
16 as Buloke s Mayor. 6 As a point of comparison, in this study 64 per cent of respondents across Buloke agreed that most people can be trusted. This is significantly higher than the Australia-wide figure of 54 per cent recorded in the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006 General Social Survey.