Democratic Double Dipping

For the following reasons, I have concerns about the stated intentions of two incoming MPs (Elise Archer and Mark Shelton) to continue their elected positions in two levels of government simultaneously:

I believe it is unethical to serve on two levels of government at the same time, especially when local government merely exists at the whim of the State Government. While it would not be a very politically savvy move, the State Government can at any time make changes to local government. This would be akin to being both an employee and serving on the Board of an organisation at the same time; most if not all constitutions forbid this.

Related to #1, representation issues arise from one person serving two levels of government in that the electors are only getting one voice/perspective instead of two with no chance of opposing views in any State versus Local Government issues.

Irrespective of whether the person is a Minister or not, in Opposition or not, they are supposed to be serving full-time to stay abreast of the issues for State Government. Local government is based on a minimum of 16-20 hours/week, which is what the 2009 remuneration rises last year were based on (for example HCC Aldermen went from under $12,000 to over $27,000 per year). Doing both would surely not be effectively sustainable over time.

What happens when there are conflicting meeting times or other required attendance, one or the other will suffer and Id wager it will almost always be their local government role thus disadvantaging local ratepayers.

Similarly, no one can serve as both State and Federal MPs simultaneously even if they thought they could do both.

Local government in Tasmania is often seen as a training ground for aspiring leaders and by not vacating the position once moved up and out, the double-dippers are denying others the opportunity to serve their communities and get this valuable experience.

In our current context, no single party has enough MPs at this point to effectively maintain a government replete with engaged backbenchers ready to take on a ministry if needed, etc this has been discussed at length in all media forums. So, why would any party allow democratic double-dipping?

The Greens have an explicit policy that disallows serving on two levels of government at the same time. In my conversations with Elise Archer, I understand the Liberals have no such policy, but she assured me that if elected she would resign from Hobart City Council (and concerningly now has back flipped on this according to her brief Mercury bio the other day) as she agreed with my points as noted above. What is Labor policy on this?

For those elected that are concerned about costing their rate payers for a by-election, I would humbly (and with self-confessed tongue-in-cheek naivety) argue that perhaps they should have factored that into their decision to run for State Government and made it clear to ratepayers what impact this would have for a by-election.

The incoming Local Government Minister should seriously consider changing the law to disallow elected representatives serving at two levels of government simultaneously with resignation from their local role effective on the first day of sitting in the new Parliament.