One idea put forward has been council amalgamations.

Bob Buick writes, in favour of councils with larger population bases :

> If Sydney was to have 8 local councils to replace their present, what I
> suppose 50 in the greater Sydney area, then there is a greater saving
> and higher collections of moneys with what I feel would be a better
> service to the ratepayers.

Max asks  :

> Anybody who has an idea to make councils bigger, PLEASE have a look at
> Victoria and what has happened there since amalgamations.

AJ writes in reply :

> Tasmania's amalgamation seems to have gone much better than Victoria's;
> although it was the result of a decision of state govt HOW it was done
> was left to the councils, which took care to set up a transition program
> which kept as much of the existing 'social capital' as possible.  Some
> local govt types in NSW have told me the same approach is needed in NSW
> (NSW North Coast is the region) because voluntary amalgamation isn't
> achieving anything.

> That's assuming amalgamation can have ANY benefits - I'm not an expert on
> whether the promised efficiency gains have materialised in Victoria or
> elsewhere, probably some have but never to the extent promised by
> economic rationalists (while there have been other social costs).

> That's the general experience with corporatisation and privatisation
> policies - specific reforms CAN produce real benefits but not if pursued
> with the sweeping 'Mein Kampf'-style ideology that dominated the 90s (we
> have done some Queensland Treasury-supported research in this area).

Max's "real word" observations are the last word :

> The results of the Albury Wodonga merger was 66.3% against, so if any
> one thinks they will get a proposal up for a new system, it will have to
> be exact, simple, understandable, and of a great benefit to the vast
> majority of people to have any show at all.

> 96% of the Hume Shire residents are against a merger with the Albury
> City Council.