A STUDY comparing NSW councils forced to merge in 2004 against those which stood alone has found no financial differences between the two, and in particular no improved financial performance of merged shires.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The findings vindicate much of the sentiment expressed by country mayors, sceptical about the latest amalgamation push, with many arguing the promised benefits purported by the Carr government a decade ago have not been realised.
The study, completed earlier this year by the Centre for Local Government, which operates out of the University of New England, Armidale, is under review ahead of publication.
Director of the centre, economist professor Brian Dollery, led the study which compared the financial status of 26 category four (general purpose) councils based on 2014 data.
He said the findings supported other means of structural reform ahead of forced mergers.
“The government is ignoring what happened in 2004,” Professor Dollery said.
“We can prove now merged councils are not performing any better than those that did not merge.”
The findings are no surprise to the sitting Forbes mayor, Phyllis Miller, who was in the thick of the amalgamation debate in 2004 as president of the NSW Shires Association.
“We would like to see the joint organisations and greater financial alliances between councils up and running first and a serious examination of the cost shift from federal and state governments onto local government.”
Local Government Minister Paul Toole lived through last decade’s merger as a councillor with Evans Shire when it was forced to amalgamate with Bathurst.
“I have seen smaller communities… continue to have local representation, but importantly have access to skills and money that just were not there before.”
Mr Toole said the government was assessing the merger preference submissions made by councils, with a response due before the end of the year.
