Money talks in Sydney council mergers
by Peter Mac Residents and councils of three inner-Sydney local government areas (LGAs), Leichardt, South Sydney and Woollahra, are fighting to prevent a proposed incorporation of parts of these areas into the Sydney City Council (SCC) local government area. Last week the merger as proposed by the Carr State Government was forestalled by the NSW Land and Environment Court, which decided that South Sydney Council had not had sufficient time to examine the proposal in detail. Leichhardt Council has a similar court action pending. The merger proposal has been bitterly contested by the two smaller councils and their ratepayers since it was announced two weeks ago. If it proceeds, the move will result in some of the most lucrative ratepaying areas of both councils going to the SCC, whose coffers are already bulging with rate revenues from the Central Business District. South Sydney Council is particularly badly affected by the proposals. For them, the boundary changes would involve the loss of 12 suburbs, including the wealthy areas of Potts Point, Woolloomooloo, Kings Cross and Rushcutters Bay, and leave them with the largely poor working class and industrial areas of Alexandria, Beaconsfield, Darlington, Erskineville, Redfern, Roseberry and Waterloo. This would result in the loss of some 34 per cent of its population, 38 per cent of its rates income, and 84 per cent of its assets. The Council has claimed, not unreasonably, that the provision of services at their current level to the remaining ratepayers would become impossible. In these circumstances the Council itself could well prove not to be viable, in which case the only option would be for the South Sydney LGA and its administrative organisation to be "blended" with one or more of its neighbours. Leichhardt and Woollahra councils would also suffer through the considerable loss of rate-paying areas. These include the inner city areas of Glebe and Forest Lodge, both of which have traditionally been home for large numbers of students, artists and the working poor. However, in recent years there has been an overwhelming demand for inner- city living by the rich, and suburbs such as Glebe and Forest Lodge have been targeted as plum sites for rehabilitation and redevelopment. The proposal follows an earlier one for the "super-merger" of councils earlier this year, which would have resulted in only five councils in the Sydney inner city area. Opposition to that proposal was so dramatic that the State Government was forced to drop it. The State Government last week claimed that the current merger proposal represents the "minimalist option", i.e. the second-best alternative to the "super merger" proposal as advocated by its architect, Professor Sproats. However, the good professor has now denied this, pointing out that he provided no detail of how the "minimalist option" would be implemented or funded. Moreover, the merger proposal is undoubtedly motivated by a wish to downsize local government services and staff numbers. If the merger were to go ahead, there is no doubt that services already provided in the areas to be taken over by Sydney City Council would be cut, on the grounds that they were now partly redundant. Some indication of this is provided by the current industrial dispute within the Sydney City Council itself, whose employees are battling moves to contract out the provision of council services. According to the Federated Municipal and Shire Employees Association, this practice has resulted in a reduction of some 23 per cent (i.e. from 945 to 731 employees) over the last five years. The mayor of Sydney City Council, Frank Sartor, has contemptuously dismissed the opposition to the merger proposals as stemming from "old ideology". In an odd way he's right. After all, the ideology will always be the same as long as those who produce the goods and services that society needs do not also own the means of producing them. One way in which that unequal relationship is expressed in big cities is in the extreme disparity in the funds available for local government services in one area compared to another. And there's no doubt that it's the big money that's driving the current proposal for re-division of inner Sydney's local government areas.