The Fit for the Future reform package announced by the NSW government last year is forcing councils to take a good, hard look at themselves and report back to the government on just why they should be able to remain independent entities into the future.

Now, that’s not a bad thing on the face of it. All big organisations need this kind of navel-gazing activity now and then to ensure they’re as efficient as they can be and that they can continue to balance their books this year, next year and, indeed, 10 years down the track.

However, it’s the way these “reforms” are looking to proceed that deserves scrutiny, with real concerns the losers could be hundreds of thousands of ratepayers across the state.

In the aftermath of the Fit for the Future announcement, much of the attention has been on the greater Sydney area’s 41 councils, the government making no secret of the fact it wants to reduce that number.

Since regional councils, including many across this region, were in the firing line under the last round of amalgamations, it seems reasonable the spotlight would fall on their metropolitan counterparts this time around.

When you consider the likes of Hunters Hill has just 13,900 residents within its boundaries, it would seem there is indeed room for consolidation.

Now, though, it seems the government is again looking over the range to the New England North West’s 13 councils.

The majority are across large areas that take in multiple towns and villages, with hundreds of kilometres of roads and bridges, and communities demanding the same level of service as their neighbours. To make some of these councils even bigger could spell disaster. 

Financial viability is indeed key, and requests from local councils in the past few years for significant rate increases over and above the government-allowed limit is testament to the fact many are feeling the pinch.

However, they’re not sitting on their hands when it comes to their future sustainability, with many smaller councils forming alliances with larger neighbours in an effort to enhance efficiencies, and finding savings in other ways.

These efforts did seem to be recognised in the beginning, with the government putting forward its Rural Council option, a way forward that recognised co-operative efforts by local councils.

Now, though, it seems the government is backing away from that, concerning many local mayors and councillors. Amalgamate or stand alone now seem to be the only games in town.

It’s a narrow view when it comes to the diversity of the state’s councils and their ratepayers, and has the potential to create more problems than it will solve.