Imagine, for a second, that the top 20 per cent of Australian income earners had their own government.
Say this government had the power to levy taxes. Only its constituents – the wealthy – would pay. In return, they would receive exclusive access to certain government services. This new government would fund schools, childcare and roads, but only for high earners.
More NSW News Videos
Berejiklian holds firm on Sydney council mergers
Premier Gladys Berejiklian has defended her government's decision to keep Sydney council mergers while abandoning those in regional parts of the state.
Sure, the rich might still grumble about paying taxes. But you would expect that taxation would face a lot less resistance if redistribution wasn't involved.
You would also expect the beneficiaries of this arrangement to fight fiercely to protect it.
![A rally against council mergers in Mosman.](/web/20170228232302im_/http://www.theage.com.au/content/dam/images/g/t/w/8/1/z/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gugxlq.png/1487992303197.jpg)
As a metaphor for Sydney's councils, this might seem overblown.
However, the fact is this: local government is the only form of government in this country where representation correlates with socio-economics.
At its most extreme expression, this correlation has produced an outcome just like the above: a de facto layer of government for the very rich.
This is best seen in the small legacy councils which represent Sydney's most exclusive postcodes.
![Residents in some Sydney suburbs, in areas along the north shore and eastern suburbs, are against mergers.](/web/20170228232302im_/http://www.theage.com.au/content/dam/images/g/o/y/r/p/j/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gugxlq.png/1487992303197.jpg)
The wealthy residents of councils in Sydney's North Shore and eastern suburbs receive better services because they can sustain higher rates. All benefits from tax collection remain in house.
At the same time, residents in these wealthy suburbs get a powerful advocate. Councils can use their considerable policy levels to protect the interests of the wealthy. Not least by protecting "inappropriate" development in their suburb, ensuring homeowners' property values stay artificially inflated by constraining supply.
It is no surprise, then, that these councils are (still) fighting tooth and nail to protect the existing boundaries.
Watching these legal challenges play out, a familiar theme emerges.
The richer council resists merging with the poorer council. Councils with more homogenous populations resist merging into areas with greater diversity.
Notice how Woollahra (median household weekly income $2398) is challenging its merger with Randwick (median household weekly income $1577), and not the other way round? Ditto Hunters Hill and Ryde. Ditto Mosman and Willoughby.
In the language of the legacy councils, this is a fight about local profile and character. They are protecting community, small scale Australiana.
They co-opt the language of progressivism to support their fight. Words like democracy, community and localism are thrown about.
Conveniently ignored are the less saleable factors that define communities: income and demography. In truth, these factors are the essence of an area's "character".
They describe the difference between Vaucluse and Malabar. They describe why the former does not want to be part of the latter.
It is natural for the residents of our wealthiest postcode to fight to protect their own council. But we must see this fight for what it is: self-interest.
David Baker has worked in policy roles in Australia and internationally.
85 comments
Comment are now closed