Local Government reform must happen as a steady as she goes manner and not rushed like water and sewerage, or what “could” be achieved but rather what “will” be achieved.
The amalgamation debate needs to be challenged and as a person who supports reform, Ian Wallace has made some very good points. Councils were forced into water reform, has that delivered cost savings? No, so I urge caution before we make another reform debacle for reforms sake. Some 2 years on we have the water reform undergoing further reform. Rushed decision do not produce good results.
There has been suggestions that there is an underlying agenda by a certain group and it seems that the Tasmanian for Reform spokesperson is endeavoring to quash that the “big end of town” is not behind it. Well it maybe that the 21 member group is open and transparent, but as a number of people have pointed out and which is the case it is being supported by predominantly the business sector, so for Mary Massina to say they are “misinformed” is being totally misleading or failed to understand the point made, maybe for obvious reasons.
I support the business sector and reform, but I cannot agree with this well funded campaign for reform at any cost. I read another Mercury article today that made the reference that that a greater Council “could” I repeat “could” save between $60 – $175 per annum on rates. Now that in itself has me concerned, as I would like to know what “WILL” happen rather that what “MAY” happen. As with the water reform the Hobart City Council was the only Council to resist and it has now been justified. The Local Government reform has a lot of “Water” to be screened first, before I will fully support it. My advice to those that are behind this, is let us make the right decisions that will deliver true savings.
On the lower end of cost savings I will make this point. At $60 savings on rates, that “could” be overall cost savings of $2.4Million for Hobart. Maybe we can find other ways to cost save?
I do not want to see another reform debacle for reforms sake and then have to fix a problem that “could” have been avoided. Gee did I say “could”, what we need is “should” have been considered prior to any changes. As they say, the runs are on the board with water and sewerage debacle and the Hobart City Council told you so, but no one listened and we are now paying the price and looking down the barrel of another rushed reform to benefit whom?
The other question I ask, is this push to reduce Local Government representation? Well we have seen what has happened with what the reduction of State Politicians in that we have seen an increase in Bureaucrats and Consultants. A “greater” Hobart or Southern Council will be a disaster for the South and Tasmania. Sometimes bigger is not better as with Brisbane it is like another Government within the State of Queensland. The city of Adelaide has around 30 thousand residents less that Hobart City and we see no call for Adelaide to amalgamate? I do believe that all Councils large and small need to be evaluated with a defined performance criteria’s set and deliver it. If they fail to meet that criteria then an administrator put in place to reform the relevant council with intent to amalgamate it in the appropriate manner.
As pointed out I support reform and the first step would be to set up a “Service delivery Authority” that also has water and sewerage in it and run similar to the former successful Hobart Water Authority and then evaluate those cost savings. Irrespective if we pursue amalgamations this authority can remain in place. I already have a notice of motion with the Hobart City Council General manager to pursue this and should be the first step in any council reform.
I have also worked on a new rates model that will see a transition from AAV to land based rating. The problem has been cost shifting which will see winners and losers. The model I developed has no winners or losers. It has a cut off point which will deliver opportunities to “ALL” ratepayers both big and small. The Hobart City Council finance department is currently modeling my proposal. It is intended to be work shopped as part of other rates modeling. That is what I would like to see with reform “deliver the goods” not “could” deliver a disaster!
I represent the ratepayers of Hobart whether they are from the “big end of town” or a “small ratepayer” I look at the big picture for the whole of Hobart and not just one sector. What needs to be considered and what I say to the TFR group is that I look at the City of Hobart as a whole. The TFR group and all reports have to convince me that any reform for Hobart will benefit “ALL” ratepayers without services being cut. At this point in time the TFR group and the reports have not provide conclusive evidence that the ratepayers of Hobart “WILL” be better off. So why should the ratepayers of Hobart suffer yet again as they have with the water and sewerage reform.
If is easy for those who are not working with local government to understand that it is not about just rates roads and rubbish. Local government is more complex and delivers far more that is being portrayed. In the past 12 years I have seen the change and more and more services that are being axed by the State Government have been taken up by Local Government in particular youth and community based services and let’s not forget the hard work that assists business, from marketing to the Taste and the football deal. Councils are no Longer the three R’s.
The sales pitch thus far may see 70% of ratepayers agree with Amalgamations but I will make this point well known, “be careful what you wish for as it may just come back and bite you” Water and Sewerage has already bitten us all and that’s a fact! Hobart City Council was on the money when it refused to accept what “could” happen with that reform.
We are all wanting the “dollar” savings and how many of us have fallen for those many sales pitches that will make us “millions” and have been bitten. The big end of town was bitten many year ago with a super lotto super proposal. I urge be aware of the sales pitch on what “could” happen.
I would like to see a gradual approach that will see the South end up with say 3 Councils of around 90 thousand residents, with a service deliver authority in place delivering the essential services to all three. But it must be considered and done right and let us not make any mistakes with Local Government reform and take it steady as she goes and get it right for the best results.
