As I said in my last post in January, I had grand plans to do more posts. I started doing a column in the local paper after each Council meeting that seems to have taken over a bit from my blog.
Having said that there is so much happening in local government at the moment and at the forefront is the Future of Local Government Review and the potential for reform of the 29 Councils that I thought a blog post might be opportune There is a lot of data available that is all a bit overwhelming for me and I'm in local government so what is it doing to the community.
Please be aware that this is my personal blog. The comments may not necessarily reflect the opinion of my fellow councillors.
One matter that is weighing heavily on my mind is whether the communities across Glamorgan Spring Bay (GSBC) want to be split up or boundary adjusted which really is only a nice way of saying amalgamated in my view. The underlying principle of GSBC over many years of potential amalgamations and boundary adjustments has always been that any reform must have advantages for our communities. Right now, I am struggling with what the advantage would be if the whole of GSBC was in a newly created south-east council or Bicheno was sent to a new north-east council. The maps in the community catchment information packs are not really clear on where Coles Bay would end up!
Some of the data that has been provided appears to be flawed. Why is 7-year averaging being used when all councils have a legislated requirement to have 10-year financial management plans and asset management plans? One Mayor has suggested to me that they believe the data has been cherry picked to provide an outcome that suits the Board, not necessarily the communities of interest.
It all becomes a bit more perplexing when the Minister for Local Government says on ABC Radio that he doesn't have a problem with 29 Councils if they can prove their sustainability. The Board on the other hand has stated that the status quo is not an option and mandated reform is the only way to go. Which one is right? In the information packs, the Board has given Councils the opportunity to provide other options.
Boundary changes are apparently only one part of the equation. Councils and communities are being urged to think about options for complementary supporting reforms such as shared services and partnerships with potential models of engagement and representation. In the main, Councils across the State are doing that now. I don't think there would be one of the 29 Councils that does not have some form of community engagement strategy. Whether we do our community engagement well or not is probably a debate for another time. The issue of course is what will 'representation' look like in a new larger council? There is a school of thought that wards or electoral districts might be an opportunity, but some don't agree with that. What is the optimum representation in a new larger council. It is one of many unanswered questions.
What about rates? There would seem to be an underlying expectation from communities that their rates would not go up significantly in a new larger council, but services would still be provided. So, the Minister said on the same ABC Radio program that this reform was not about reducing rates. To some extent I agree with the Minister. If a new larger council was to provide improved services then it is logical that they would need more funding. Where does the main of the funding come from? The local government funding model is built on charging rates which is defined in the Local Government Act as a tax, not a fee for service.
What about staff? It is contended that a larger council could attract a highly qualified skill set of staff to meet all the mandatory requirements, but will it? There is a shortage of qualified people across all areas of planning, engineering, accounting just to name a few and that is not just in the local government sector. Engaging staff to continue providing services is particularly difficult now with the uncertainty around the future of any/all of the 29 Councils. Why would anyone want to start a new job in the current uncertain landscape of local government reform?
Recently a member of our community who is very experienced in the local government reform space suggested that without the potential economic and practical benefits being identified, there can be no proper process that will lead to a good outcome. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no economic modelling done as to what the optimum number of Councils for Tasmania should be. As my correspondent said, is it 10, 15, or 6?
As Councils, there is no clear direction from Government as to what the target number of Councils is. All I know is that as elected members and staff, we are spending significantly more time in briefings and workshops within the sector and with our neighbouring Councils. It is not only costly time wise but there is an impact financially as well.
There has been no indication of the transition process to a new council. Who is going to fund that? It is going to be a very costly exercise just in the establishment of new identities alone. What about acting as a planning authority. That part has been taken out of the terms of reference of the Board and given to the Minister for Planning. There has been no communication with Councils that I am aware of around who or what will run planning and yet we are being expected to offer suggestions on how we would provide this service to our community either as a stand-alone Council, shared service or amalgamated.
We seem to have a very ad hoc process going on in the local government sector in this reform process. Too many options with no economic objectives have been suggested. It is going to be difficult to achieve an outcome to reduce the number of Councils that will deliver the services we all want from our local council without robust economic modelling and the establishment of clear economic objectives. As my experienced correspondent said, it can't be just a 'feel good' exercise. It has to achieve an outcome that is beneficial primarily to the ratepayer and overall to the communities of interest.
It doesn't look like that right now!
