There's a letter in this week's Post Newspaper that calls on us to follow the rest of Australia into larger local governments. Here's my response to that, submitted as a letter to the Post - and, for balance and context, the original letter is at the right of this post.Robert Mitchell (Letters, 6th December 2014) thinks we should follow the rest of Australia into larger local governments, but has he looked at the reality of what has happened? Amalgamations haven't reduced costs anywhere.
If amalgamations are such a good thing, why hasn't the WA Government been able to tell us. The Minister for Local Government has admitted that he doesn't have a business case and he doesn't know what the costs and the benefits would be.
Well, the residents and ratepayers of Geraldton/Greenough/Mullewa (now merged) can tell him.
- Rates up 30%
- More managers and directors and fewer workers
- Lots of contractors and consultants who have no real connection with the area
- Businesses closing because they can't afford the higher rates
- Building and development permits even more problematic than previously.
And there is a very real loss of the local from local government, especially if wards are done away with as the WA Government is doing. Larger local governments will inevitably increase the cost of standing for election and local government becomes the domain of political parties and others with deep pockets.
If amalgamations are such a good thing, why are amalgamated councils in Queensland already de-amalgamating?
If amalgamations are such a good thing, why did amalgamations in Canada increase the number of local government staff by 27%?
Professor Brian Dollery, Director of the Centre for Local Government at the University of New England (NSW) has studied amalgamations. His research shows that there are only economies of scale for about a quarter of local government expenditure and the rest is subject to diseconomies of scale - costs go up as Councils get larger.
Where's the benefit to residents and ratepayers?
WA data on council charges (rates and rubbish charge) show no difference between small and large Councils (see chart below). The logic of this suggests that (a) there is no economic or financial case for larger local governments and (b) that, since there is no systematic relationship between size and charges, communities should be given the choice of what size of local government they want.
UPDATE 12th December 2014. Letter published in Post News, 13th December 2014 - the online edition comes out a day before the masthead date!
Well, if only Mr Mitchell had done his homework and understood what it was all about he would have been able to ‘see the light’. He doesn’t even understand why the CEOs were there, poor lad. Could it be for the same reasons we the ratepayers and mayors were there for.
ReplyDelete