It’s a well-worn path of politics. If you have a contentious idea, outsource to a supposedly reputable consultancy firm to confirm that you’re on the right track. That way, it’s beyond politics. Here’s a verifiable independent source providing a direction that you merely are acting on. All of a sudden your contentious idea is based on fact!

Mike Baird, a bloke who just seems so nice nobody could possibly argue with him, used this exact approach for council amalgamations. Okay, he didn’t use one of the big consultancy firms. He pushed the dirty work over to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) which, despite the use of the word ‘independent’, is part of the NSW government. They were chosen because they are the arbitrator for council rates and set limits on how much councils can rake in. So, they know how councils work.

Their mission was to ascertain which councils were "fit for the future". Well, that’s the spin. In reality they were asked to show how they would merge, or, if they wanted to stay as they were, how they would get their shop in order. Whichever way, the argument that “we’re fine as we are thanks” wasn’t going to be acceptable.

In the end they concluded that 63 percent of the 144 councils analysed didn’t make the grade. That was enough for the smiling Baird to give an ultimatum. In effect, show how you’re going to merge or we’ll do it for you.  Naturally those in the councils who stood to lose their jobs, didn’t like the idea.

The criteria used was largely based on scale. Bigger councils can, IPART reckons, deliver services more efficiently. They can also offer “improved delivery of major infrastructure,” which is a curious objective given that, by and large, falls into the hands of the state government. Bigger councils can also, IPART says, offer more "integrated strategic planning and policy development". Okay, but I was under the impression their remit was largely to fix the roads, manage building regulations and make sure there’s enough libraries and parks to keep people happy. Where’s the policy requirement?

They're probably right

In a nutshell, IPART and the NSW government reckon bigger is best. And, personally, I don’t disagree with them. Take Bankstown, for example. It’s an area of 200,000 people. That’s not many in a ciy of four and a half million. Thankfully for them, they passed the test. Perhaps their tagline “the city of progress” helped.

Yet, how can a council for just 200,000 people really be efficient? The logic for IPART’s “fit for future” criteria seems rather one dimensional. If its efficiencies you are looking for, as though that is something we’ll need more of in the future, then you will always gain by merging councils. They talk about a number of councils merging with a neighbour, but after that’s done wouldn’t there be efficiencies in joining together some of these newly formed super-councils into mega-councils, as Mayors fight for their lebensraum.

If bigger is best let’s go the whole hog and have just a handful of councils in NSW. Let’s give them more responsibility – developing coordinated transport and land-use policies for example – then we can ask the bigger question, what do we need a state government for?

The City of Sydney

Clearly, Sydney Council is too small. IPART found that though they met the financial criteria they had been set, they failed to meet the criterion as a global city. Instead, they suggest, as the CBD expands the council too should expand, to include councils in the eastern suburbs. They suggest this will help with transport planning. But isn’t that something that effects the whole metropolitan area?

Here’s a radical thought. Imagine a Sydney Council that covered the whole of the metropolitan area. Imagine if they coordinated transport and land-use (which are heavily interdependent) across all of Sydney. They could determine where commercial property should be encouraged and build transport infrastructure to meet it. They could address housing affordability in line with transport and journey to work criteria, changing rate structures to help determine the spread of the population. They’d have lots of instruments on hand to influence how the city is shaped, rather than the current arrangement that sees local councils with little power, arguing the toss over state government decisions.

There is nothing original in this idea. Most of the world’s major cities are governed by one, city wide council. Take London, for example. The Greater London Council coordinated transport, police, emergency services and the like, across the entire city. Maggie Thatcher abolished them in 1986 – many suspect because she didn’t like Ken Livingstone – but they weren’t gone for long, re-emerging in 2000 as the Greater London Authority, run by, oh yes, Ken Livingstone (till Boris the buffoon took over in 2008).

London still has local councils at a district level, but I’d suggest Sydney isn’t big enough to warrant that. We can still ensure local representation by following the New York model, where the city council has local members elected from Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens and Staten Island.

A bigger Sydney council, amalgamating all local councils, would also remove the ridiculous idea that currently exists for Sydney, that businesses can vote. And get two votes. This city isn’t for business. It’s for people. Sure we need business to survive, just as we need transport to get to it and we need recreation to stay sane. How these factors are balanced should be determined by people, not by businesses. Otherwise we might as well let gardeners, garbos, librarians and train drivers all have extra votes too, because they all represent different aspects of the work of local government.

The real efficiency

Sadly IPART’s restricted view of “fit for the future” didn’t consider the real efficiency opportunity – getting rid of state governments. It would save money, remove a tier of politicians and get rid of the budget squabbling which hinders any hope of policy development in this country.

To illustrate how ridiculous the current system is, let's look at where the money goes.

Bankstown council has a budget of about $150 million, collected largely from rates. It means they have about $750 to spend filling in holes in the road, paying librarians, giving planning permission, emptying your bins and assorted other community services. That seems like good value for money.

The NSW state government has revenue of $65 billion. That’s about $8,500 per person, much of it revenue from GST, together with whatever they can get from being nice to the federal government. For that they have to provide schools, run hospitals, build roads, manage transport, run the police and try and keep prisoners from escaping. Again, that seems like good value for money.

The Federal government, on income tax alone, collects $250 billion. That’s about $11,000 each. For that we pay our defence bill, pensions and welfare but, beyond that, there’s not a lot to show for it. The work of the federal government is largely regulatory – for finance, social services, communications. They don’t spend too much money in these areas, just control how other people do.That doesn't seem like value for money at all.

Surely it makes more sense that the Federal education department runs schools, rather than telling state governments how to do it. Do we really need federal and state police? Couldn’t they all be one happy family called, I don't know, maybe "the police".

In short, if you move some of the state responsibility up to the federal level, and other bits of it down to mega councils – of which there might be four or five in NSW – do we really need a state government?

Just as local councillors hate the idea of mergers because many of them will be unemployable, state governments will never support their own abolition. Admittedly, Mike Baird might have to find another job which, for a man with a nice suit and pleasant smile, in this city almost certainly means a career in real estate sales. But he'd be so good at it!

If we really are aiming to make ourselves fit for the future, losing the States is an idea that needs to be looked at. And, as it’ll need a constitutional change, we can hold a multi faceted referendum, that can also ask the Republic question and fix the same-sex marriage dispute, all on the one form. How efficient would that be!

Our Prime Minister says he is, by nature, a reformer. So over to you Malcolm.