Coalition of the unwilling fights NSW council forced mergers


A coalition of councillors, residents, mayors, community groups and businesses owners from parties across the political spectrum- except the Coalition – has put its foot on the accelerator to oppose the NSW government’s mega council reform agenda.

The Save Our Councils Coalition (SOCC) – officially launched last week but the group appears to have been working  away behind the scenes for several months – aims to ramp up the pressure on NSW Premier Mike Baird through social media and public protests in an attempt to highlight the widespread disaffection in council chambers across the state to the idea of forced council amalgamations.

The heat is on, with NSW councils’ Fit for the Future applications due in by June 30, where councils must demonstrate scale and capacity, sustainability and efficiency, and there has been a rash of Facebook groups opposing forced mergers in response including:  Save Randwick from Amalgamation, Save Our Strathfield and Pittwater Forever.

SOCC protested outside state parliament last week, featuring a rousing call to battle by Woollhara Deputy Mayor Greg Levenston.

“Woollhara at this moment is fortress Woollhara,” Mr Levenston said.

“If they want to amalgamate us they’ve got to take down and bash down the walls. We are not moving.

“The eastern suburb councils are in disarray. There are some mixed and strange mergers being sorted out but we are here to stand alone. We are not going to be amalgamated.”

Greens MP and Local Government Spokesperson David Shoebridge said an overwhelming number of NSW residents were “deeply opposed” to the idea of councils merging and that there was no “rational case to supersize NSW councils.”

“Forced amalgamations are so unpopular, so anti-democratic, that everyone from the Christian Democrats to Labor to the Shooters and the Greens are standing together to oppose them in Parliament,” Mr Shoebridge said.

“Residents want to retain the local character and identity of their neighbourhoods, not see that lost in a one-size-fits-all mega-council.

“Larger councils mean less representation and advocacy, less of a voice on planning proposals, less access to your local government, and poorer services,” he said.

“There’s never been a cogent case for forced amalgamations. If the residents want it, there is provision for them to apply to merge.”

Mr Shoebridge said that the average NSW council had just over 50,000 residents – almost  double the OECD average of 27,224. In Sydney the average was 104,000 residents and almost four times the OECD average.

Councils had feared that IPART was going to set a minimum population target of around 250,000 residents as a marker for merging but these fears never exactly materialised. However, IPART has said: “We will be guided by the population estimates for a particular local government area included in the Independent Local Government Review Panel’s recommended options”.

The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART), which the NSW government has tasked with assessing the applications, only released the final assessment criteria recently. IPART will hand down its recommendations on whether councils should merge with their neighbours or go it alone by mid-October, a timeframe which the Local Government NSW has strongly criticised.

Further evidence of the rumblings of rebellion amongst ratepayers and councils is the current NSW Upper House inquiry into the way the process has been managed and how the criteria for ‘fit’ councils has been decided. The inquiry is taking submissions until July 5 and is due to report by mid-August. A measure of the level of resentment stirred up by the prospect of forced council mergers is that there will be five public hearings during the inquiry in July and August.

It is unclear whether legislation would be the route taken to push councils who fail the Fit for the Future test and who are unwilling to merge to amalgamate with their neighbours. However, it looks likely since the alternative would be to put every change in front of the Boundaries Commission and spark a spate of public hearings. Of course, the danger faced by Premier Mike Baird in taking the legislative option is the obstinence of balance-of-power holders like Christian Democrats Upper House MP Fred Nile, an opponent of forced council mergers.

Comment below to have your say on this story.

If you have a news story or tip-off, get in touch at  

Sign up to the Government News newsletter

3 thoughts on “Coalition of the unwilling fights NSW council forced mergers

  1. My concern is that there are a lot of vested interests (and self preservation interests specifically) with mayors, councillors, GMs and senior management in the over crowded LG space in NSW.
    This self interest is leading to a lot of council propaganda to constituents and staff (unrealistic fear tactics), that are masking the real truths and advantages of amalgamations.
    Amalgamations (done properly) should lead to better, cleaner, healthier, more viable,more efficient and more effective government at the local level.

  2. Local government is meant to be local. That means the sector is not “overcrowded” as Darren claims.

    And it is communities, not GMs, who are leading the charge against mindless “one size fits all” mergers. We leave the propaganda to the NSW Government, they seem so good at it. As the article says, there is already a mechanism for Councils to merge if they wish to. We don’t need Big Brother giving a democratic process an anti-democratic shove from behind.

    1. The basic problem with the criteria for being fit for the future is that it is so narrow–just scale and capacity.
      Amalgamation, if “done properly” MAY be worthwhile but from what I hear from Councils where amalgamation occurred in the last round is, after 10 or so years some have still not aligned all the services and policies of the previous Councils and that in the case of one metro amalgamation they are getting further into debt every year, even after asset sales.
      How is it possible to be sure that an amalgamation will be “done properly?”
      In Queensland one amalgamation was spectacularly wrong and took 4 years of tireless work by locals, and untold resources, to de-amalgamate.
      Others just plod along making the best of what has been forced on them.

      Big Councils do not have a big vocal community concentrated in one area. Their residents are spread thinly over a large area which allows a Council it to do what it likes, with little thought given to the effect on communities far from the civic centre. This is not local, but regional, government.
      The appropriate number of Councils is not is not about a Minister picking a number out of the air.
      Local Councils are the basis of local government of the local people by the locally elected Councillors serving the needs of their local community regardless of size.
      Scale and capacity are not the only criteria by which to judge whether or not a Council is FFTF.

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be published. All fields are required