2014
DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2014.930506
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

De-Amalgamation in Action: The Queensland experience

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0
2

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
12
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Once forced amalgamation has taken place, a common pattern is also evident (Dollery et al, 2012). Ongoing public discontent with council mergers characteristically continues, often for years, which occasionally results in de-amalgamation, as in Queensland; see, for example, De Souza et al (2014). Furthermore, no public reporting of the costs of mergers to affected councils or their local communities occurs, state governments never undertake assessments of merger outcomes, and no improvement in the operational efficiency or financial viability of merged local authorities is observed.…”
Section: Municipal Mergers In Australiamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Once forced amalgamation has taken place, a common pattern is also evident (Dollery et al, 2012). Ongoing public discontent with council mergers characteristically continues, often for years, which occasionally results in de-amalgamation, as in Queensland; see, for example, De Souza et al (2014). Furthermore, no public reporting of the costs of mergers to affected councils or their local communities occurs, state governments never undertake assessments of merger outcomes, and no improvement in the operational efficiency or financial viability of merged local authorities is observed.…”
Section: Municipal Mergers In Australiamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Opponents of the amalgamation accused the state government of trashing their democratic rights, threatened litigation, and appealed to the Prime Minister to intervene (through plebiscites designed to embarrass the state government; Moore 2007)). In addition the political opposition promised to allow de-amalgamations in the event that they were later able to form government -a promise that ultimately resulted in four de-amalgamations in January, 2014(De Souza et al 2014. Thus, whilst proponents were able to execute all of the amalgamations they planned, the programme cannot be considered an unmitigated success due to the legacy costs borne.…”
Section: Queensland Forced Amalgamationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The SSS program sought to examine the operational efficiency and financial sustainability of the local councils in Queensland to assist the LGAQ in identifying those councils that were not sustainable or efficient compared to a range of indicators, and then to make recommendations on appropriate policy responses (De Souza et al. ).…”
Section: Queensland Amalgamation Processmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, only five were examined by the Boundaries Commissioner and just four councils were allowed to proceed with de‐amalgamation (Noosa, Douglas, Livingstone and Mareeba) (De Souza et al. ). Referenda were conducted for each of the four councils on 9 March 2013.…”
Section: Queensland Amalgamation Processmentioning
confidence: 99%