Meant to save money but no one’s counting
MERGING Queensland’s councils was lauded as a way to save taxpayers millions.
But a decade after amalgamation the Queensland Government has no data on what, if any, savings amalgamating councils made.
The much-protested upheaval, including a threatened plebiscite, turned 157 councils into 72 and ended 724 councillor positions.
From March 15, 2008, amalgamations were designed to cut costs through greater economies of scale.
Local Government Association of Queensland CEO Greg Hallam said the mergers had not solved councils’ financial woes.
“Any claims of savings were clearly illusory,” he said.
“Financial conditions haven’t changed one iota. Amalgamation wasn’t the silver bullet.”
A Local Government Department spokeswoman said it had not collected any data to see whether amalgamation’s goals had been met.
“The department has not carried out a specific comparison of local governments’ financial positions prior to and after amalgamations, or in some cases de-amalgamations,” she said.
“The department does analyse council sustainability and financial positions through specific processes such as the Local Government Borrowing Program and the Grants Programs.
“It also works closely with the Queensland Audit Office in analysing data and trends in order to provide assistance to
at-risk councils as required.
“The QAO has an audit program which identifies local government financial risks using a range of financial data.”
Mr Hallam said some larger councils had made gains and pointed to being able to plan across an entire region as one of amalgamation’s benefits.
But he said some smaller councils were still struggling and some communities continued to push for further deamalgamation. In 2014 the LNP de-amalgamated the
Noosa, Livingstone, Douglas and Mareeba councils.
The most recent QAO local government report, for the 2015-16 year, expressed concerns about councils’ revenue generation.
BIGGER NOT BETTER
Research from leading local government expert Brian Dollery has found mergers were unlikely to have made significant savings due to the labourintensive nature of councils’ biggest costs.
The University of New England business professor said bigger did not necessarily mean better when it came to many of council responsibilities.
“You can’t get half a road resurfacer for a smaller area and you can’t get one twice the size for a bigger council area. They only come in one size,” Professor Dollery said.
“Or look at a health inspector. If you have double the council you need double the health inspectors because you’ve got double the work.”
Prof Dollery said as certain functions including water supply, payroll and computer systems did benefit from economies of scale, small councils would have been better off teaming up than merging.
“That is a massive opportunity. You could have 30 or 40 councils operating off the one IT system, for example. Then leave labour intensive services to individual councils,” he said.
Mr Hallam said the LGAQ had heavily invested in technology to help provide such services to councils.
ANY CLAIMS OF SAVINGS WERE CLEARLY ILLUSORY.
GREG HALLAM