The Tasmanian government has announced plans to “reform” Tasmanian local government by slashing the number of councillors across the state. The government has put up a discussion paper on the topic, but in short it would reduce the number of elected officials on councils to five, seven or nine members. Across the state, this would remove almost 23% of all councillor positions.
This has been presented as a plan that will provide “efficiencies”, and deals with a supposed problem with Tasmania having a high number of politicians per capita. It would allow for a significant increase in pay for councillors (which is a good thing), but I think they are heading down the wrong track.
Councils play an important role in democratic accountability, and that role can’t be performed if the size of the council becomes too small. That job still needs to be done, whether the council has a population of 10,000 or 100,000.
There are structural reasons why you would expect a small state like Tasmania to have more councillors per capita than a larger state, but if it is a problem, it makes far more sense to deal with it by amalgamating small councils, rather than shrinking the council chamber to a point where it can’t do its job.
Reporting on the government’s proposal focuses on one particular statistic: the number of councillors per head of population. Only the Northern Territory has fewer residents per councillor.
I think this is the wrong number to look at. Tasmania has a small population, and more of the state lives outside of the bigger cities of Hobart and Launceston.
While it is common for more populous councils to have more councillors, the average population per councillor is usually much higher in big urban councils. Council amalgamations can have more of an impact in capital cities. So Tasmania’s low ratio of residents living in Hobart, compared to the proportion of any other state living in the capital city, means that you would expect a lower population per council.
Councils are much more populous on average in the three big east coast states. All three states have undergone substantial amalgamations, particularly in urban areas.
But amongst the other states, Tasmania is pretty close to WA, and not that far behind behind South Australia.
If you look at the number of councillors on each council, Tasmania again falls somewhere in the middle.
The discussion paper from the state government is very much focused on the costs of representation, and pretty much ignores the purpose of having a decent number of councillors sitting around the council table.
The bigger the council table, the more room it creates for a diverse range of candidates to get elected. It also is crucial for allowing room for opposition and disagreement.
When you shrink councils down to the size of a corporate board, it gets a lot easier to keep everyone on the same page. Council communities are not monoliths – you should expect different councillors to represent different parts of the community, with different interests. Yet there is a lot of pressure in “local government reform” circles to create institutions where everyone is on the same page.
It’s not surprising that mayors and senior council staff like the idea of shrinking councils – councils are less likely to elect members who oppose the majority position. But that’s not good for democracy.
If Tasmania has a problem with finding the money to pay councillors better, it would be far better to amalgamate councils than to leave the council boundaries alone and strip out representation from those councils. A local government review in 2023 recommended an ideal structure of just fifteen councils across Tasmania (down from the current 29), but suggested a focus on merging twelve current councils into seven, thus reducing the number to 24. Late last year, the state government made it clear that they adopted every other recommendation of the review, but not the amalgamation plans.
It is understandable that amalgamations are very difficult, but that is the answer – not turning elected local councils into under-sized boards.
If you run for council for the money then you are missing the point, however, the key aspect you have identified is having a diversity of opinion and experience in the chamber so that meetings are not just a rubber stamp or mere party room policy implementation. Why have less people than a normal jury?
If I was to look at the stakeholders in my 40 years experience in the sector, we are dealing with a very small group of activists seeking favours. The vast majority of voters have no real interest or desire to be involved.
So there are a few in the business community via chambers of commerce that might have a say, numerous sporting groups that exert a lot of influence, less so the arts, and more so the diverse cultural groups who want their members looked after!
The range of services provided (expected?) varies from council to council and community to community. Childcare, aged care, medical facilities, libraries and education are all higher tier activities that are left to council when no or limited resources exist for a reasonable service level at state level.
Libraries, pools, change rooms, clubs, caravan parks, river/beach fronts and other large financial outlay items are often beyond commercial and rate based financial returns. But the investment and maintenance has to happen to provide some community assets and services, dare I say, livability?
Transient Elected officials backed by operational staff and structures overwhelmed by daily concerns have limited resources and opportunities to develop strategic partnerships and solutions that can resolve complex issues in a dynamic environment dictated by private owners as well as policy and funding set by higher levels of government.
Local government is ‘lucky’ to not have more serious problems in recruiting new and innovative leaders, but, once elected, many find the structural limitations too difficult to bear.
I’ve been a City Councillor (twice) in a large Victorian Regional Council, and the State Regional Road Manager – with regular contact with up to 30 municipalities & (circa) 180 councillors – covering about 20%of the State. I’ve lived, and worked, through a period when Victoria’s Municipalities was pruned massively – and has resulted with some acclaimed success, and a few dilemmas.
I’ve visited Tasmania several times and toured widely on two occasions. You’d have to believe that there is plenty of room for rationalisation of the Tasmanian municipal structure – even accepting that there are some constraints for connectivity.
The most suitable solution should embrace the reduction of both the number of Councils and the number of Councilors within each municipality – together with a strong, strategic, plan to ensure inclusion of all ratepayers and inhabitants of the Council. In this way, costs will be reduced but representation will be enhanced.