IT’S down to the pointy end of the local government fightback over the Fit for the Future proposals this week and you can expect the last few days will ramp up the debate.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Walcha and Guyra shires believe they are fighting for their collective lives. And they are. Their passion and commitment to the cause are on display in many forms.
The sideline positions of the two bodies they’ve been slated to amalgamate with under the IPART recommendations are less prominent but have been noted by many observers.
The vocal opposition coming out of the Sydney metropolitan bodies has fuelled a lot of media exposure, because the city-based councils have always been fairly political and prolific with noise when it comes to their very existence.
There’s always been a great divide between the city councils and those in the bush – and not just a geographic one.
Most regional councils have been apolitical, and their management plans and day-to-day administration are pretty much on show and visible for smaller communities to watch over.
The Fit for the Future proposals, in the end, have been pretty much arbitrary when it comes to the criteria for the Walcha and Guyra mergers.
No one can fathom how Walcha has been singled out, when other smaller or similar bodies with much more suspect sustainability levels have escaped the noose.
Lately, some critical financial arguments have been raised, not least the figures from University of New England centre for local government director and economics Professor Brian Dollery.
Along with colleague Dr Joseph Drew, he has authored a number of articles, from as far back as 2013, querying the end result of local government mergers.
What they’ve tended to argue is that changing the processes of councils, and not the structure, is more the answer. And, earlier this year, they said there was no empirical support for claims amalgamation would improve council performance.
Given that councils provide vital services most residents use on a daily basis – such as roads, rubbish removal and recreation facilities – the suggested mergers embodied in the Fit for the Future plan should be of great concern to residents, they wrote.
And, they said, what was more alarming was the fact the program was critically flawed – with many not enhancing the financial sustainability of councils as claimed.
The fact they’ve called into question the financial report apparently backing mergers that would deliver $2 billion in economic benefits – describing it as “awash with errors” – is another worrying element. They are points the debate will no doubt take up, too.