Proposed amalgamation of Bankstown City and Canterbury City councils
Bankstown City and Canterbury City councils were both found by IPART to be financially strong and sustainable as stand-alone councils, but failed the the government’s arbitrary and ill-defined criteria of “scale and capacity.”
The government claims a forced amalgamation would see a total financial benefit of $94 million over a 20 year period. This includesa $20 million grant from the NSW government, which artificially inflates the so-called benefit and is paid for by the taxpayer. The ‘saving’ component is $74 million and would mainly be achieved through job cuts to council staff.
The government has chosen to release only selected extracts and a high level summary from the study undertaken by its consultants, KPMG to support these alleged savings. It is impossible for the community to make a full submission on the government's financial case for amalgamation without having access to the complete study for each and every council. What is apparent from the publicly information about the KPMG study is that it:
+ inflates any potential savings from future contracting arrangements in amalgamated councils, especially given the councils already enter into many contracts through Regional Organisation of Council contract tenders when there are identifiable economies of scale from doing so
+ assumes large staff losses in the merged council that will inevitably impact on local services an the local economy
+ grossly underestimates the likely costs to councils from renewing each council's IT infrastructure following the merger
+ fails to consider the very real costs the council and local community will incur with a less responsive and larger council that has less intimate knowledge of local needs
+ ignores the large loss of council staff time and resources in implementing an unwelcome and often unsupported amalgamated council, and
+ has no regard to the informed academic opinions based on detailed empirical studies of past council mergers that proves forced amalgamations typically fail to generate financial sustainability for local councils.
The proposed merger would dramatically increase the ratio of residents to elected councillors to 23,399 residents per councillor, up from 16,696 in Bankstown and 15,063 in Canterbury.
Based on international comparisons there is not a good case for making either of these councils any larger. Sydney councils are on average almost four times larger than metropolitan councils across the developed world, with the average population of OECD metropolitan councils 27,224 and the average population of Sydney councils 104,493.
- Make a submission on the proposed amalgamation of Bankstown City and Canterbury City councils
- Bankstown City Council's IPART assessment
- Bankstown City Council's submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry
- Bankstown City Council's own financial report
- Canterbury City Council's IPART assessment
- Canterbury City Council's submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry
- Canterbury City Council's own financial report
More Detailed Financial Material Relevant To Each Council
There are some significant variations between the figures outlined in the Government's proposal and the correct figures as reported in the councils' financial statements.
Bankstown: According to the government's merger proposal, the operating revenue in 2013/14 was $154.8 million. The actual result was $147.5 million in FY 2012/13 and $149.8 million in FY 2013/14. According to the proposal, the operating result in 2013/14 was $1.4 million, this accords with the actual result in FY 2013/14, though does not mention the impressive increase from an operating result of $0.6 million in 2013. According to the proposal, the asset base in 2013/14 was $1.2 billion. The actual asset base was $2.2 billion in FY 2012/13 and FY 2013/14. The proposal states that the infrastructure backlog was 4% in 2013/14, whereas the council’s IPART submission discloses 3.89%.
Canterbury: According to the government's merger proposal, the operating revenue in 2013/14 was $104.9 million. The actual result was $101.3 million in FY 2012/13 and $107.7 million in FY 2013/14. According to the proposal, the operating result in 2013/14 was $10.2 million, which accords with the actual result, though omits the impressive increase from an operating result of $5.8 million in 2013. According to the proposal, the asset base in 2013/14 was $597.5 million. The actual asset base was $968.3 million in FY 2012/13 and $976.9 million FY 2013/14. The proposal states that the infrastructure backlog was 3% in 2013/14, which aligns with the council’s IPART submission.