Council amalgamations will not solve local government issues

Lack of transparency and accountability in local government would be better solved by streaming meetings online, rather than merging councils, writes Lisa Darmanin

AN IMPORTANT feature of local government is the direct relationship residents have with their democratically elected local councillors and local government workers who deliver council services.

It ensures services meet the specific needs of communities and councils are responsive to changes in community priorities.

Recently, Glenorchy Alderman Sue Hickey called for councils to be “more accountable, transparent, and dynamic”. Alderman Hickey also identified the need for councillors to have broad skills to meet the needs of the role.

The need for councils to have greater democratic accountability and decisionmakers up to the challenge of overseeing a complex local council are things most people would strongly agree with.

However, the suggestion that council amalgamations will be good for democracy (not to mention local services) ignores the evidence of past amalgamations.

Evidence shows that just amalgamating a group of smaller councils will not work if they do not share a population centre.

When smaller councils amalgamate, one of the effects is to remove jobs in smaller regions, where councils are the largest employer, and replace them with more management roles in larger centres.

There is also evidence

Tasmanian councils already provide services efficiently and that many of the stated benefits of amalgamation can be achieved without resorting to the trauma of council amalgamations.

Council amalgamations in other parts of Australia have not returned the savings promised by commercial consultants, proper consultation with the community is rare, there are risks to service quality and local connection, and amalgamations often result in an increase in staff expenses due to increases in middle management.

Looking at research into council amalgamations and their suggested benefits highlights the folly of rushing to amalgamations to solve the problems of local government.

The solution to a lack of transparency and accountability in councils will not be found in reducing the number of secure jobs in smaller communities or adding managers at the expense of workers who

provide on-the-ground services.

A lack of accountability needs to be tackled head-on with greater transparency requirements on councils, so residents are better informed, have a real voice in decisionmaking, and can hold councillors to account.

True local democracy requires that the public have access and a line-of-sight over the decisions made by their elected representatives.

In the same way that federal and state parliaments are streamed online and fully recorded through Hansard, the ASU would like to see a requirement for all Tasmanian council meetings to be both streamed online and recorded and uploaded for viewing by the public.

A real concern for local government workers is when councils use closed council meetings under the guise of “commercial-in-confidence” to prevent workers and their union representatives from being consulted on major changes.

The same applies to councils’ reluctance to provide documents requested under of the Right to Information Act.

Council Customer Service Charters and policies should have strict timelines for when a council is required to release information, require clear reasons why requested information has been refused, and include meaningful appeal processes.

The definition of ‘public interest’ needs to be tight enough to ensure it is not wrongly applied to keep information away from the public.

Addressing the need for greater democratic accountability is a serious issue that needs proposals that provide greater transparency and accountability.

But any suggestion that council amalgamations will lead to greater transparency and democratic accountability are misplaced and risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Australian Services Union secretary Lisa Darmanin.