Hans Willink: Why I Favour Council Amalgamations

by Hans Willink

On 12 September I put out a press release announcing my intention to be an independent candidate for Clarence Council and to run for the positions of Alderman and Deputy Mayor.

At the same time I advocated council amalgamation with Tasman and Sorell Councils and included a supportive comment from Andrew Wilkie MHR, for which I was most grateful.

Not unexpectedly mainstream Tasmanian media failed to run it, perhaps distracted by the footy and raised terror alerts. Perhaps they thought “here’s just another candidate blowing his trumpet” or maybe “who cares what happening in the sleepy hollow of the eastern shore, anyway”.

They could be excused for thinking “Here’s another one running for Mayor or Deputy Mayor without any experience or qualifications, just to get a bit more publicity.”

One radio journalist did phone, with questions focussing on “what’s in it for “Tasman and Sorell?” I could hear the cogs turning over in the back of her mind “they’re never going to buy it, so why bother even raising it?”

Good question. Cynicism rules.

Indeed, I haven’t always been an advocate in support of council amalgamation. At the last council election I campaigned for the opposite position against Clarence Council amalgamating. I could justify the turnaround now on the basis of “listening to the community”, but there is indeed a rational basis for my turnaround and that I’m not just another populist sniffing the wind to detect and exploit any change in public sentiment.

On 28 September 2011 The Mercury published my comments which included:

Council merger risk warning: Clarence City Council candidate Hans Willink is concerned the city is “sleepwalking” into amalgamations. Mr Willink said he opposed a “shotgun” merger with what he called Clarence’s “under-performing and financially struggling neighbours” …..”Clarence Council costs $1033 per capita, $944 less than Hobart and $361 less than Glenorchy,” Mr Willink said. “Blind Freddy can see that if amalgamated, Clarence Council will have only two choices to reduce services or to increase rates and charges.”

Pretty strong stuff you might think. How is he going to use weasel words to get out of this one?

Well firstly, my opposition, as stated, was against amalgamating with Glenorchy and Hobart and not to Tasman and Sorell, the model that I now advocate. I maintain my position that the priority for council amalgamation should be to those very small councils with small ratepayer bases and undue reliance upon state and federal Grants. Councils like Tasman.

Are councils like Sorell that much less efficient than Clarence? I have recently been in the fortunate position to look closely at Sorell Council, as the Project Manager for the replacement of their computer systems with a single UK- developed, local government system in use throughout Australia and the world. I would now doubt if there are any substantial operating efficiencies between Sorell and Clarence City Councils.

So why bother amalgamating at all, if everyone is now equally efficient?”.

Firstly, any councils that are dependent on large computer systems are vulnerable to system failure and the smaller they are, the less likely they are to have the local IT staff (and backups for them when sick or on leave) to fix problems quickly. It makes sense to standardise IT systems and to centralise systems support.

Secondly, whilst systems have been installed at Clarence and Sorell, they are not as good as they could be have been had their combined purchasing power been used. Having researched large and expensive council systems on the mainland, I believe their major advantage lies in optional “customer relationship management” modules. Modules that increase the ability for the community to transact business with council electronically without having to visit, modules that track and report back on community requests and can answer ad-hoc questions about how well council is performing.

Thirdly, putting the efficiency issue aside I would like comment about ‘branding’, in which both Sorell and Tasman have significant advantages over Clarence. At the risk of attracting criticism, I do not believe that Clarence and the eastern shore have particularly attractive or unique brands.

Clarence is known as the poor cousin of Hobart, a group of quiet, middle and lower-middle class suburbs with nice water views and a cricket oval but without the unique history, culture or buildings of the western shore. It could be so much more.

On the other hand, Tasman Council with Port Arthur and Sorell built in 1828 have perhaps the strongest historic brand in Australia. Clearly, they have much to offer Clarence which could be leveraged to mutual benefit. Clarence could help Tasman and Sorell with grant applications and co-ordinating responses to local issues, such as the Dunalley bushfires and also benefit from a new tourism brand as Australia’s most historic council. Such a new brand might help it secure funding for local historic tourism attractions such as Kangaroo Bluff. Win-win.

So what about those who say that council amalgamation will result in less representation, that Tasman and Sorell will lose their identities and suffer under the tyranny of the larger and evil Clarence Empire?

Perhaps we should again look to history, but to a time a little more recent, 20 years ago in Victoria, when Jeff Kennett reformed local government in Victoria. 210 municipalities became 78 and in suburban Melbourne 53 municipalities were reduced to 26, serving an average population over 100,000 (i.e. Hobart and Glenorchy Councils combined).

Not only did Kennett amalgamate councils, he introduced a ‘ward’ system where voters in a ward (or suburb) voted for just one councillor, who could specialise in and better represent their local area. I think sub-municipal wards hold the key to ensuring that all three councils and the communities that live in them, can maintain their identity and representation.

Lastly, I would like to respond to criticism that I may be under qualified to be Deputy Mayor and am only running for it to appear ‘more important’ on the ballot paper.

Well, I have a bachelor degree majoring in Government and Economics and a Masters Degree in Business Administration. Together with over 10 years experience in the Senior Executive State Service (including membership and chairing of public service committees) and private sector experience implementing local government systems, how much more experience do I need to occasionally deputise as the Mayor, on the odd occasion when he (or she) may be unavailable?

As a final note, I’m not running for Deputy Mayor because I think the current incumbent, is doing a poor job. On the contrary, Jock Campbell’s contribution after more than 30 years on council has been immense. Clarence has much to be grateful for. That said, any organisation, regardless of how well it has been served can benefit from the occasional infusion of new ideas and leadership.