TasFarmers Matters - Time to pursue local government reform

It should be highlighted that good local councils add vitality and vibrancy to our communities.

But to deliver that is an absolute need for good governance.

This is the process of interaction between elected officials and the administration, the governance function.

Typically, the focus is between the chief executive officer or general manager and the mayor.

These roles in Launceston for example, should be mindful of the multitude of private business interests and the larger 71,000 strong population of the greater region.

The mayor is ultimately responsible to the whole community, an important feature of our representative system of democracy, a point which we shouldn’t overlook.

Similar to a board of directors being responsible to shareholders, all elected officials are directly accountable to the electorate.

The needs of the electorate therefore cannot be ignored; with the mayor and councillors being ultimately responsible to the community, they must steer the administration of the council.

That needs to be set by good strategic planning, which is the responsibility of councillors in the fashion of an executive board; these plans should seek to better social and economic outcomes that benefit our communities.

In building those plans, trust in the currency, open and transparent communications around open planning, demonstrate that councils are aligned with the community they serve.

The councillor’s role then is to hold the administration accountable for the delivery of that strategy.

Strategic failure occurs when there is non-communication with the community, as in the example of the City of Launceston failing to consult and communicate on an astronomical rate rise of 40 per cent.

The second indicator of a failure is the inability to financially justify the rate rise, with no clear impact reports or transparent methodology for decisions being provided publicly.

The failures surrounding the Launceston rates decision and those of other councils should not be viewed in isolation.

They raise broader questions about the structure, capability and accountability of local government across Tasmania.

If councils are to exercise significant powers over taxation, planning and economic development, there must be clearer legislative standards of governance, stronger transparency requirements and greater accountability to the communities they serve.

This also strengthens the case for broader reform, including council amalgamation to achieve economies of scale, reduce administrative duplication and improve service delivery.

Consideration should also be given to whether planning responsibilities should remain fragmented across multiple councils or be consolidated under a single state authority capable of applying a consistent framework to new developments and city planning.

Such reform could improve governance, keep councils focused on their role in the community, reduce unnecessary duplication and help address the housing and development constraints currently facing Tasmania and the entire nation.

This is not reform for the sake of reform.

It is about building a local government system that is more accountable, more capable and better able to serve Tasmanian communities.

Local identity and representation must be protected, but the duplication, inconsistency and governance failures of the current system can no longer be ignored.

The question is no longer whether reform is needed, but whether we collectively agree to pursue it.