Each edition we feature the views of a State Local Government Association President. The following is from Mayor Sue Smith, President Local Government Association of Tasmania.
The rocky course of reform in Tasmania, reported in the February edition of Local Government Focus, has only become rockier, with community polls showing strong resistance to the proposal to reduce the current 29 councils to 11, coupled with a further resignation from the Local Government Board charged with the responsibility of reviewing the recommendation, that the State Government has now referred back to them.
There has been a total of three resignations from the Board. To the credit of Local Government, elected members and staff, through all this turmoil, have maintained a steady ship ensuring service delivery and future planning continues. Councils, in fact, have started the budget process for the 1998-99 financial year.
The referral of the recommendation back to the Board has meant the deferral of elections from 28 April to a suggested date in August. The Ministerial Direction requires the Board to report again by 31 May. It will be interesting to see what happens if the suggested August elections get caught up in the Federal elections.
Attempts to offer alternatives of strong performance benchmarks, audited annually in the same manner as financial audits, as a viable option for Councils not desiring to enter structural reform via amalgamations, has been discounted by the State Government.
It should not be forgotten that the number of Councils in Tasmania was reduced by some 37 percent in 1993. In light of the strong community dissatisfaction with the Board’s report, I believe it unfortunate the ‘strong performance benchmarks’ option was not given more credence.
It put the onus on Councils to decide whether amalgamation was the better option or whether the benchmarks could be met in the current structure, with the risk of being ‘counted out’ for poor performance through the auditing process if sectional failures occurred.
There appears a perception among economic rationalists that ‘big is beautiful’, and yet many ’boutique’ Councils are showing better performance and finances than the larger areas.
We continue to have a presumption that if the bank account is large, the corporation is performing well and will survive, but it is matters such as the efficient turn around of building or planning approvals, for instance, which are the real costs to business and therefore very important issues.
I doubt that further structural reform, following on from 1993, is going to be the ‘bright light’ the State Government is expecting. Without the roles and responsibilities of differing levels of Government being firstly settled then we are still going to move from issue to issue with continuing problems.
For a State Government so heavily in debt, and still borrowing, to be chastising costs and performance of Local Government that has reduced its debt levels by some 49 percent, can only mean a hidden agenda aimed at passing on more service delivery responsibility without the complementary financial arrangements.
The only way that the State Government perceives it can improve its level of performance is through the disposal of responsibilities rather than improving its own internal operating and administrative performance.
Without the recognition of Local Government in the Australian constitution as a sphere of government in its own right, this saga will continue intermittently through the history of Australia.
