Opinion: Six reasons why six ‘super councils’ won’t work

No matter how many times it’s dressed up as a new and improved idea, the reality remains the same: bigger isn’t always better and when amalgamations are forced, local communities lose out.

The debate reared its head again in the media this week with the recycled idea that we should merge our 68 individual councils across South Australia into six ‘super councils’.

But as with every argument, there's always two sides – and this is especially the case when discussing amalgamations.

The inefficiency myth

The claim that councils are inefficient is simply not true.

South Australian councils already work together through shared service agreements for waste, roads, environmental health and more. They save millions by doing so – despite having more legislated responsibilities and less federal funding than they did 30 years ago.

Research from think tanks, universities and economists have debunked the idea that reducing the number of councils leads to cost savings, economies of scale or increased efficiencies.

There’s a place for amalgamations when they are community-led and supported by the councils involved, but they can’t be forced. Tearing apart a system that works is fraught with unintended consequences, higher costs and an erosion in local representation.

In my travels around the state, what I hear is that people want a sense of community, united by local councils. They don’t want decisions about their streets, parks or local services being made by people who don’t understand the character and needs of their area.

They want a say on the issues that affect them at a neighbourhood level. Councils provide that connection through monthly public meetings, annual consultations on budgets and business plans and direct engagement with residents.

This level of transparency and grassroots involvement ensures residents have a direct line to decision-making – something that would be lost in a large, centralised council structure, which could be headquartered hundreds of kilometres away.

Amalgamations don't guarantee savings

Merging councils may sound like an easy way to save money, but there’s no guarantee – and it’s never that straightforward.

Just look at New South Wales, where council mergers have been expensive and messy, without the promised cost reductions.

Many eastern states are now dealing with the complex and costly process of de-amalgamations, attempting to undo the very issues that mergers were supposed to fix. In those cases, the promised savings never materialised, and communities were left paying the price.

Less local control, worse outcomes

Right now, if you have an issue with council services, you can speak directly to local representatives who understand your community.

Elected members come from the community – and often the same suburb – and have an in-depth understanding of what matters the most. Under a ‘super council’ model, decision-making would be centralised, meaning fewer local voices and potentially more bureaucratic red tape.

South Australia’s communities are diverse, and local councils reflect that in the projects and services they offer. Our state has one of the strongest economies in the nation, with unemployment rates remaining at historic lows.

That’s in part supported by local decision-making and allowing councils to respond to unique community needs and investment opportunities.

The truth remains: when governments are closer to people, they’re more responsive and accountable.

Bigger councils mean bigger bureaucracies

Supporters of amalgamations highlight Brisbane City Council as the supposed gold standard of efficiency. Well, be careful what you wish for.

Last year, Brisbane City Council spent $884 million on employee wages. It had seven top executives earning more than $400,000, with two paid upwards of $700,000.

In South Australia, CEO salaries amount to around 0.7% of total annual expenditure – hardly the blowout some claim. These leaders are collectively overseeing $27 billion worth of high-value community assets and infrastructure.

They are shareholders of the community, and need to be competent, experienced and well-qualified professionals. Strong councils need strong leadership, and that’s an investment.

Fewer councils don’t mean fewer costs. And a one-sized-fits-all bureaucracy gives way to a loss of local democracy.

Councils play a key role in state policy

Local government is critical in achieving state goals on housing, water infrastructure, planning, environmental sustainability and more.

Stripping councils of resources and power could require the State Government to take on more responsibilities, increasing costs rather than reducing them. Residents will still be paying for the same services – whether it be through rates or through increased state taxes.

Instead of dismantling councils, we should be strengthening their ability to deliver services and help build stronger communities.

The real solution? Smarter collaboration

We don’t need disruptive, expensive mergers. What we need is smarter collaboration and increased federal funding to support backlogs in infrastructure renewal.

Councils can work together on shared service agreements, better procurement deals and joint infrastructure projects – just like they already are doing – enabling cost savings without losing local control. It’s a win-win for our communities.

Super councils are a gamble South Australians can’t afford. The focus should be on finding ways to build more efficiencies, not erasing them altogether.

We need real solutions, not costly experiments.