Council Amalgamations As Simple As Swiping Right

By Marcus Braid on December 16, 2014 in

Australians generally find the concept of arranged or forced marriages an unattractive proposition. Similarly, the prospect of having their local council forcibly amalgamated is met with equal disdain.

There may be some positives; my mate’s parents spent months searching out and eventually finding an attractive partner for him. They checked the prospective in-laws’ financials, paid for the ring, the wedding reception and the honeymoon, and slipped-in a deposit on a house.

To most Aussies, though, such parental intervention in matchmaking is unwelcome and just not our way. Our courting tradition calls for endless hours spent in singles bars consuming the schooners of courage not only necessary to deliver a pick-up line, but also to help cope with the subsequent humiliating failure that may result. Or we cruise Internet chat sites, or try the matchmaking services advertised on high rotation on late night television, which we watch when we arrive home alone from the singles bar.

Honouring this tradition of self-determination, the state government’s policy of no forced council amalgamations leaves it to councils themselves to trawl the municipal bars to find a mate with whom to grow and prosper.

Under its new ‘Fit for the Future’ package, the NSW Government will book a table, buy the drinks and the meal, and if things go really well, pay for a room.

I’m not suggesting mayors across the state pull on their skin-tight leathers and head to the local pick-up joint (that’s what annual local government conferences are for), but with the sector losing one million dollars every single day, it’s time councils to seriously examine their operations and put forward evidence-based arguments on the pros and cons of an amalgamation with their neighbours.

There is nothing new in the call for council reform. Reports have come and gone, but voluntary change has been scarce.

Under the previous Labor government, 27 councils were forcibly amalgamated, the most cynical of which combined the City of Sydney with South Sydney Council to ensure a Labor victory in the 2004 council elections.

It all ended in tears for Labor when the public backlash against the amalgamation catapulted Clover Moore into the Lord Mayor’s seat, where she remains.

Councillors have never warmed to the idea of doing themselves out of a job, and small interest groups don’t want their local power bases undermined either. Each will decry a loss of local representation, without articulating exactly what that means.

I’ve often questioned the optimum ratio of councillors to residents. A Randwick councillor represents 8600 residents, Waverley 5300, Hunters Hill 1900, but in Blacktown it’s 20,000. This would be a good starting point for discussion on local representation.

Local government didn’t start in NSW until 1859, with Randwick and Waverley being two of the first to be created. A largely uninterested community viewed local government as another level of bureaucracy collecting yet more taxes. The borders of Randwick and Waverley Councils remain largely unaltered since that date, so a review is a little overdue.

However, there are always refuseniks who default to conservative self-interest and howl down those brave enough to think boldly. I say there is nothing sinister in seeking greater efficiencies so that councils can provide better services at a lower cost.

Councillors are being given an opportunity to shape the future of local governance. They should embrace this and rediscover some of that idealism that drove them to become civic leaders in the first place. Most have great ideals and a passion for what is right for their communities. They can now regain that passion to give their communities the best they can offer.
Let’s match-make rather than force.