A great many Tasmanians are unhappy with the performance of their councils and struggling under crippling rates bills. Reducing the number of councils would be a tangible way of addressing this.
The case for council amalgamations is self-evident and compelling. For instance it would create efficiencies and that would reduce the cost of local government, diminish future rates rises and lead to much improved services. Having 29 councils in a state of 500,000 people is patently ridiculous. It’s way beyond time for the State Government, supported by all the political parties, to deal with it.
Council amalgamations are much too important a matter to be left to the councils themselves to decide. They’re too close to it and for many aldermen and councillors it’s not in their self-interest to see the big picture.
But nothing is going to happen until the State Labor-Greens Government and Liberal Opposition show some backbone and tackle council amalgamations head-on, including the possibility of forced amalgamations if that’s what’s eventually needed. But regrettably they refuse to do so because they lack that backbone and in particular the sort of strong leadership figures needed to pull off big and difficult reform.
One of the problems here is the self-interest of the Labor Party and Greens who now see councils as a legitimate part of the political space and run endorsed council election candidates. For these parties at least, councils are another opportunity for expanding their political power and, if for that reason alone, refuse to insist on changes that would reduce the number of aldermen and councillors.
Show Comments
Comments (18)
Re Council Amalgamations - it should be up to the people whether there is Council amalgamation. It certainly should not be forced on them without any thorough consultation with those who live in the municipality. They will be the ones effected. Previous Council amalgamations, despite what Mr Wilkie has said,have not proven to be cost effective; indeed costs have escalated. There is a strong case for no amalgamations, certainly no “forced” amalgamation. After all I thought we lived in a democracy and not a dictatorship. Ask the people who live in areas where amalgamation has taken place to see if their rates have gone down. I don’t think so.
look around the world
a greater merged hobart council would have the outcome of the centre to become derelict & blighted & hollowed out as the central reps would be outvoted by reps representing the outskirts who would represent those who elected them as councillors & starve the centre of resources.
remember the last debacle on sewerage & water where there was duping ( by the state lab-green ministers) of the councillors with the users of water & sewerage slugged with massive bill increases, which are projected to increase by the order of double the rate of cpi for the next few years & possibly longer & in perpetuity if privatised by the pollies.
would these people be trusted ever again.
Andrew Wilkie states that local council amalgamations “would create efficiencies and that would reduce the cost of local government, diminish future rates rises and lead to much improved services.” This is the much touted conventional wisdom but where is the actual evidence? At first glance it would seem obvious but in practice creating larger bureaucracies doesn’t always lead to greater efficiencies; sometimes it just creates more bureaucrats. What exactly does one measure when talking about “efficiencies” anyway?
The last round of amalgamations demonstrably led to poorer services at a local level and there were few, if any, obvious savings. The loss of community participation in local decision making certainly led to a reduction in voluntary contributions to community projects which is not only an obvious “inefficiency” but, probably more importantly, negatively affects social structure and/or community cohesion.
Changing the role and responsibilities of local government might be a better move and is certainly worthy of serious consideration. Some decisions and actions are best taken at a grass roots community level while other responsibilities might better be fully “centralised”.
With a total population of only half a million perhaps it would be better to get rid of local government altogether?
A discussion worth having.
Of course councils don’t want to give up their little empires. Many councillors, not all, but a significant number, have an interest in approvals and developments.
It seems rather likely that larger councils mean less duplication of infrastructure, easier rationalisation. 29 councils for 500,000 people, plus state and federal upper and lower houses, is over the top.
Elected representatives requiring councils to amalgamate in the public interest is certainly not “dictatorship”, Reg.
Why have State Governments? They cost billiosn we can’t afford, duplicate administrative powers, overrule council democracy, waste money, and many have been found to have been corrupt - Tas Hydro, NSW Planning, WA Inc, Qld Health..
What’s the point in amalgamating councils when the savings would likely end up again in gratuities to the likes of Gunns and Ta Ann?
John Hayward
‘For instance it would create efficiencies and that would reduce the cost of local government, diminish future rates rises and lead to much improved services”.
Dear Andrew show me some evidence.
#7 “Dear Andrew show me some evidence.”
Dear Andrew can’t, he’s just like the rest of the clones, trapped in ideological idiocy orientated to a failed past and way past its use by date. He’s caved in on every occasion and piddled out pathetic excuses to try and cover up his programmed inadequacy, Like them all, he’s fail at every turn.
As previous posters have said, everything they do and promise it will bring the people lower costs and benefits, does the opposite and puts more power and our money into the hands for their elitist vested interests.
Where are his real plans for the future, bet he has none other than the status quo of fatalistic psychopathic idiocy. His proposal is all the evidence needed to show he’s so far off in lah lah land, it’s a joke, if not so deadly and destructively serious.
We should be getting rid of the politicians, council general managers and senior bureaucrats, then we may have a chance of making decent progressive and cost lowering decisions and outcomes.
Centralising more and more power and services, is an elitist dictatorship, not democracy run by the people
Problem is, those still standing in the new organisations rebuild their empires and the savings aren’t always there. Do what Kennett did and put administrators in charge for the first few years. Legislate the operating parameters and maybe we might see the benefits that others have not been able to achieve.
Amalgamations as per water and sewerage has shown the gross increase in charges compared to council owned operations.It might sound good that 29 councils for the size and population of Tasmania is inappropriate but the issues of Circular Head have nothing in common with those of Clarence.I feel the bigest reason for local councils is on geograghical reasons than any other.A bush fire plan for the midlands would be different from one on the west coast but one planning scheme would bundled it all together.The west coast is wet and the midlands is dry, why would you have the same planning criteria? Because the policy makers from Hobart haven’t been to either place.
“The case for council amalgamations is self-evident and compelling.”
No and no. So humour me Andrew, what exactly is the compelling case?
As far as I can see the councils already work cooperatively on a large number of issues. Many services are tendered/outsourced, there’s hardly a great wad of fat to cut, there’s no gold-plating of bicycle paths (I wish!) going on, etc. and most bread-and-butter council services operate and threadbare budgets. Cut out this year’s Glenorchy Council junket to Paris? Kingborough’s $200,000 to Madonna to play at Blackman’s Bay? Yeah yeah.
There’s no clamouring for reform at all. Some clown with a spare 500 quid made up some Reduce Rates coreflutes and Andrew Wonkie’s bought the franchise. *yawn*
A Hannah Martin-bylined story, under the headline “Call to force mergers”, in today’s Mercury had this for an opening sentence:
“THE State Government has sealed the fate of ratepayers struggling with rising costs, by refusing to force council amalgamations”: link –
http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2013/01/23/370859_tasmania-news.html
There are at least two problems with this opener:
(i) there is no attribution (although the next par includes “self-interested” in the Mercury’s own quotation marks);
(ii) expressions such as “sealed the fate”, “struggling with rising costs”, and “refusing to force” (my “”s) are subjective and highly debatable value judgments, far from the Who, What, When and Where such an opener ought to be telling us; instead, it looks (although it may not) to echo the sort of media release one would expect from the Property Council of Tasmania / Tasmanians for Reform’s omni-present Ms M Massina, our unofficial Urger-in-Chief on LGA amalgamation.
Many of the posts appended to the story look like nothing more than Duelling Mantras argy-bargying between Bigger is Better and Smaller is Smarter.
Surely the key matter is whether local matters are usually better handled by local people, rather than being handed over to officials 300 to 750 km away to “address” our “issues”?
(Same questions apply to calls to abolish State governments, particularly ours: what’s the likelihood of Canberra bureaucrats “addressing” our “issues”? from 1500 km far, far away doing any better? And, no, don’t insult us by drivelling on about “They’re only an IT click away” - ever heard of subcontinental call centres, FFS?)
Kennett’s amalgamations in the 1990s were a disaster for community spirit and action. LG simply became more remote; access to individual councillors became almost impossible; no one could get past council HQ staff when trying to lodge inquiries and complaints; village halls and other publicly owned buildings were sold/demolished on economic grounds (maintenance costs); and, as with the privatisation of the power stations throughout Victoria, everything got more expensive.
Being acutely aware of the incompetence and insensitivity of government at all levels in Tasmania, I see no advantages in a process that would further the demolition of the remnants of our so-called democracy.
And would the residents of the Channel accept LG rule from Huonville after a merging of municipal areas that had lost Kingston and Blackmans Bay to a Greater Hobart Council?
A bit of double-think from Andrew Wilkie. He first claims that reducing the number of councils would improve efficiency and then accuses the state government (which we have only one for all 500,000 people) of being ineffective.
Well what a surprise no amalgamations and most certainly no forced amalgamation. Amazingly the people now arguing their firm opposition to local government reform are almost to a man the same people who demand that the Legislative Council be reformed or better yet abolished.
I just wonder are the conservative leave things as they are party really saying that the council numbers we have are perfect, not one less?
If not one less how about a few new ones? In the interests of good local government surely more councils would bring people even closer to their local councils and thus provide Tasmania with a much better service at the local level?
Let’s hear if for Home Rule for Railton and the Democratic Peoples Republic of Cygnet.
Let’s hope that Comment 15’s “Let’s hear it for . . . the Democratic Peoples Republic of Cygnet” is so tongue-in-cheek as to leave a permanent bulge.
Everyone, outside the nomenklatura, who has lived in a Democratic Peoples Republic of Wherever wouldn’t wish that fate on anyone.
Perhaps everyone who seriously spews such rubbish should be made to experience a typical citizen’s year in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea.
#16 I never thought I would have to write these words but here goes if only for Mr Colquhoun who is clearly a concrete thinker - irony Mr C irony.
Yes, Mr D, “irony Mr C irony” - one of the drawbacks of the visual medium is clearly communicating irony, which is usually in the ear of the hearer, rather than in the eye of the beholder.