Comment on Colyer's Claim

Augusta-Margaret River Shire President, Cr Ray Colyer, was quoted in the Augusta-Margaret River Mail yesterday;
http://www.margaretrivermail.com.au/story/1734177/shire-scotches-rumours/?cs=1429


He claimed that council priorities were determined by conducting a survey of electors, residents and ratepayers.

"It was a very open and transparent process, conducted in line with legislative requirements," he said.

It may have been conducted in line with legislative requirements, but it was not open to all residents unless the shire undertook a letter drop to all mailboxes. If the survey was sent to all those who appear on the rate records held by the shire then the survey will only have been received by those people paying rates direct. If you live in a rental property then you pay rates indirectly, as a portion of the rent you pay to your landlord. If you live in a caravan or tent then you pay rates indirectly every time you purchase goods or services and the cost contains some element of the rate charge. Often the reason prices in this shire are high is because rates are high.

The refusal of this shire to acknowledge that those not owning property have rights is seriously skewing all decision making in favour of the land owners who often have no interest in the shire except as an investment vehicle where they hope to make a return. But community and everyday living is about much more than a return on investment.

This refusal to accept the tenant as a genuine contributor to our society, a person we value, a person who has a right to a voice is wrong. It denies many people any say in shaping the directions that the council develops the shire.
 The constant pandering to what the wealthy property owners want rather than those living here has been causing problems for decades. When the CSIRO undertook the $500,000 research project named "Sustainable Futures" they recorded that the second home owners spent only an average of 64 days a year in the shire. This does little for our local economy or for the dependency ratios of a community that relies on volunteers for so many of the social services that make living in a remote rural location possible.

The community spoke out about the injustice they saw and within the CSIRO reports there was a recommendation that;

Prepare a case and lobby govt to change election system – 1 vote for 1 property. i.e. people living elsewhere cannot vote in both places

This may not help with the alleged "customer survey" the shire sends out but it could take us closer to electing councillors who actually want to retain our community with the culture and values we want. This report was produced in 2005. What did the shire do then? Bury it. They have never referred to any of the $500,000 worth of research.

I will invite Cr Colyer to respond directly to this post as I would hate to be accused of using a blog to transmit misleading information.