February represents the commencement of a conversation with the State Government on voluntary amalgamations.
Why we are having the conversation is not quite clear, but the Minister is keen to explore how Local Government can be more effective and efficient.
From a Local Government perspective, there’s some suspicion about where this may all lead.
The Auditor General reports annually on the financial sustainability of all councils and has, over a period of time, reported all are sustainable.
Community surveys indicate that satisfaction with council services is above average across the State and while alternative surveys on amalgamations are often conducted by lobby groups, not one community in the State has petitioned or even called upon its council to join with a neighbour.
So what is the problem we are trying to fix?
This remains the magical question.
Councils are elected to look after their local communities.
If they are sustainable, delivering the services required at the level of satisfaction required and advocating for and delivering on the communities’ interests, what needs to change?
Councils have already identified that there are more effective and often necessary alternatives to their standard mode of delivery, and are willing to join with neighbours or through virtual means use technology to deliver improved services or meet statutory obligations.
Resource-sharing and shared service models are not unique to this State and provide an effective means by which to bring about efficiency and effectiveness.
Many councils are already engaged in these activities at some level.
Of course, if the ultimate goal is less councils, then these processes become superfluous but again, what is the problem we are trying to fix?
If Tasmania’s 29 councils are reduced to a lesser number and those new councils operate on the same model as now, have we actually fixed anything?
Surely there needs to be a re-imagining of what it is that Local Government should be, or could be in the 21st century.
Fewer councils than what we have may bring around scale efficiency but does it address the needs of changing communities and demands for services?
Does it acknowledge that councils are so much better placed to undertake functions that the State sector continues to underachieve in?
Does it seek to consider the strategic infrastructure needs of the State or the demographic challenges of the future?
Sadly, it achieves none of the above and unless there is some higher level thinking by those seeking to achieve amalgamations, whether voluntary or compulsory, it is likely that much effort is going to be wasted in focusing attention on all the things that are likely unimportant to the meaning of life.
Local councils are responsible for local communities.
Higher order issues affecting the State is the domain of the State Government.
If change is necessary for the improvement of the State overall, then it needs to take responsibility for leading that process.
That is accepted by Local Government.
But it needs to be clear about its goals and outcomes, and it is preferable that a sound evidence base and a process to consult and inform is in play.
The Minister has at least been prepared to start the discussion process so let the conversation begin!
